BREAKING Lorreta Lynch under investigation!

You are not allowed to KNOWINGLY remove classified material. That is one of the statutes where intent matters.

Here is the relevant testimony on THAT:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/07/ath.01.html


REP. CYNTHIA LUMMIS (R), WYOMING: Here's the issue that the people that are calling me from Wyoming are having, they have access to this statute, it's Title XVIII U.S. Code 1924. I'm going to read you the statute, it says, "whoever being an officer employee, contractor, or consultant to 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." Armed with that information, they're wondering how Hillary Clinton, who is also an attorney, and attorneys are frequently held to a higher standard of knowledge of the law, how this could not have come to her attention.

She was the Secretary of State. Of course, the Secretary of State is going to become possessed of classified materials. Of course, she was an attorney, she practiced with a prominent Arkansas law firm, the Rose Law Firm. She knew from her White House days with her husband, the President, that classified materials can be very dangerous if they get into the wrong hands.

She had to have known about this statute because she had to have been briefed when she took over the job as the Secretary of State. So how, given that body of knowledge and experience, could this have happened in a way that could have potentially provided access by hackers to confidential information?

COMEY: You know, it's a good question. A reasonable question.

The protection we have as Americans is that the government in general and in that statute in particular, has to prove before they can prosecute any of us, that we did this thing that's forbidden by the law. And when we did it, we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. We don't have to know the code number, but that we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. That's the protection we have, one I have worked for very hard. When I was in the private sector, I did a lot of work with the Chamber of Commerce to stop the criminalization of negligence in the United States...

...

COMEY: You would have to show that and prove criminal intent both by law, that's the way the judgment would instruct the jury, and practice by the Department of Justice. They have reserved that statute, even though it's just a misdemeanor, for people who clearly knew they were breaking the law, and that's the challenge. So should have known, must have know, had to know -- does not get you there. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew they were engaged in something that was unlawful. That's the challenge.


See the words "knowingly removes" and "with the intent"? There was insufficient evidence that Clinton did so. As Comey points out.

This was obvious from the beginning, by any objective reading of the statute. Which is why it was completely unsurprising that the FBI didn't recommend prosecution.

 

Please review the VIDEOS I posted.











Mishandling classified data is a CRIME, whether intentional or not.

Yaaaaawwwnnnn.....

 

Um, what does that even mean?

Choose whatever sources you like. I said "balanced" to plant the idea that you shouldn't rely on obviously partisan sources for this. Make a good-faith effort to seek out sources that have both relevant expertise and no obvious ax to grind.

 

She literally set up a private server to transmit emails between her and her staff with government related business. As a Secretary of State, you are going to sit here and try and tell me she had no idea any of that information was going to be classified or secret?

That is just completely insane.

She knew exactly what she was doing and she knew full well the DOJ and Lynch were protecting her. So did her assistant when she was sending classified information to her husband to print out for her. The intent to transmit classified information on unsecured servers was clearly evident. Besides, intent isn't even required for U.S.C Sec. 793(f) as has been clearly laid out earlier in this thread.

 

So, off the top of your head, you are unwilling to even proffer your own list? Laughable.

 

UPDATE: Comey behind closed doors today giving classified testimony on Loretta Lynch and the Hillary Clinton email scandal that could very well lead to charges and indictments. Trey Gowdy assured the American people that over 100 witnesses still need to be interviewed and that the investigation is moving forward!



Link to Lynch investigation by the FBI:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/05/0...everything-she-could-protect-hillary-criminal

Reported by Catherine Herridge.

 

Again, this was investigated and discussed ad nauseum at the time. Why are you guys STILL clueless about this?

Clinton could have used an official email account, like secstate@state.gov.

Guess what: THAT IS AN UNCLASSIFIED EMAIL ACCOUNT. It would not have been suitable for her to send/receive classified emails using that address.

Instead, she chose to use an unclassified private account.

Choosing to use THIS unclassified account instead of THAT unclassified account is totally a nonissue, as far as classified information is concerned. NEITHER is suitable for it.

So no, the mere fact that she decided to use a private account instead of a state.gov account for her UNCLASSIFIED emails is not proof of either criminal intent or gross negligence.

Since the question you asked above indicates you don't actually understand the relevant facts and issues, your subsequent claims to be able to read minds is even less persuasive than normal.

 

Comey had already found sufficient evidence of HRC's criminal actions to warrant a federal indictment. Comey simply declined to pursue charges. Should congressional committee members lay this on Sessions desk, Hillary is going to prison. Sessions wasn't given the opportunity to prosecute. Lynch let Hillary off.

 

Why is that laughable? Does it somehow render my advice to avoid partisan sources invalid? Does it somehow refute the fact that you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the relevant facts and issues in this case?

I feel like you are trying to distract from your own lack of knowledge by trying to deflect to a discussion about what constitutes a balanced source. But I'm not insisting that "my" sources are balanced while "your" sources aren't. I'm just giving you general advice to avoid partisan sources on this issue. For instance, neither ThinkProgress nor Breitbart are going to be good sources for this, since they have obvious axes to grind. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp, and as long as you are making a good-faith effort, there's no point in getting into nitpicking about whether sources that are less-obviously biased than those two are still "partisan" or not.

 

Guess what? she was using a private email server to transmit classified and secret information. That is literally a Federal offense! she violated Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code making it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email and Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). It is not a gray area, she was in clear violation. The FBI cited "lack of intent" and said they would recommend no charges be filed. The FBI confirmed she lied, she did possess classified material and that she deleted and emails to keep them from Congress and the public. She also signed documents stating she read and understood the laws and would abide by them. She didn't.

If you did the same thing she did, you would be in jail for a very long time. Hillary was being protected by the head of the DOJ, PERIOD.

The lengths that some liberals go to cover up their crimes and the crimes of their leaders is staggering!

 

Irrelevant. Comey knows the name of the author. He doesn't deny the existance of the memo. It's someone with access to the departmental network. Lynch is dirty. Comey admitted as much when he stated that Lynch meeting Clinton determined his course of action. Time to face the music I think ...

 

*Sigh.* No. As I have now explained repeatedly in this thread, and indeed as Comey explained repeatedly to Congress. You appear to be DELIBERATELY refusing to understand this.

Had she sent those exact same emails from her state.gov account, it would be equally illegal (or not). The use of the private server is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the question of whether she broke the law.

And the law says it's only illegal if you KNOWINGLY send and receive classified material using nonsecure means, or do so with GROSS negligence.

Which isn't "breaking the law." It's violating a policy.

Here is the relevant part of Executive Order 13526:
https://www.ise.gov/sites/default/files/EO13526.pdf

Sec. 5.5. Sanctions.
(a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.
(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;
(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive; (3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or (4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.
(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.


Note that sanctions are only appropriate if exposure of classified information is done "knowingly, willfully or negligently."

And note that the available sanctions are all administrative -- reprimand, unpaid suspension, loss of security clearance -- unless an actual law is broken. Since Clinton was no long Secretary of State, such administrative punishments were moot.

Here is the text of that section:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Sections (a) through (e) require intent. Section (f) requires "gross negligence." As I've already pointed out in this thread, Comey clearly explained why Clinton's actions did not meet the "gross negligence" standard, even as he criticized her for being "extremely careless."

Violating the NARA regulation is, again, not "breaking the law": It's violating a government policy. For which the punishment is, again, administrative action. Which, again, was irrelevant to Clinton, because she was no longer working for the government.

Never mind that that particular regulation applies to agencies, not individual employees. Whatever policy the agency develops in response to that regulation is what applies to employees. The State department's relevant policy is discussed here:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

The requirements for personal email accounts are on Page 8. Note that at the time Clinton was in office, the onus was on the agency, not the employee, to ensure such records were retained. A revised 2014 policy puts more specific requirements on employees. But again, violation of a POLICY is not "breaking the law": it just can get you disciplined or fired.

What they actually said was that they wouldn't be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Clinton had intent, nor could they prove gross negligence.

Now you're really getting silly. Signing the documents made her liable for breaking related laws. That's it.

The FBI concluded they did not have enough evidence to charge her with breaking those laws. Yet we are to assume she DID break the law? How does that make any sense?

You are free to speculate that she successfully covered up her law-breaking. But please don't positively assert that she broke the law, when the people who actually KNOW the law and investigated her concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to make such a case.

Oh, bullshit. Comey went out of his way to relate the history of prosecutions under the relevant statute, and make clear that she WASN'T being given special treatment. This was literally a KEY PART of his testimony, specifically addressing that point. Stop ignoring reality.

 

Are you actually trying to tell me now she did NOT use a private email server to pass classified and secret information?

Have you ever signed a secret clearance form or a form for the government and it's IT policies? It puts the law right on the forms you sign complete with what can happen to you if you violate the policies and laws it refers to.

She violated federal law. Felony charges should have been filed but she was being protected by Loretta Lynch who would never allow charges to be filed. She did this in exchange to keep her job at the DOJ.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/

Complete and utter corruption at virtually the highest levels in the Obama Administration.

I still can't believe people out there try and defend this.

 

Did I say that? No. I said the use of a private server is IRRELEVANT to whether she broke the law around classified materials. The only thing that matters is whether it was a nonsecure email account. The fact that it was a private server rather than her EQUALLY NONSECURE state.gov account is irrelevant.

And as far as using an unclassified server to "pass classified and secret information", it is only illegal if it is done knowingly, or with gross negligence.

I thought I was pretty clear on those two points. Maybe you should re-read my post.

The FBI concluded otherwise. Further, the FBI's conclusion is supported by an objective reading of the relative laws, as I detailed in the post you apparently did not read.

So who should I believe? You? Or the FBI and the plain language of the law?

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ral_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

 

I read the whole thing and the word "intent" isn't in there anywhere.

 

Me too. I read the whole thing and she violated Federal Law, no matter how many times I read it, she is still guilty. Comey literally had to rewrite it. I am guessing he faced extreme pressure from Lynch and maybe even Obama. Obama knew she had that server, he was communicating with her on it. Which means he violated Federal Law as well.

 

The attempts to influence the election.

 

Well the DoJ doesn't investigate, and the FBI is their subordinate agency.

Whether Lynch had undue influence is conjecture, some think she had.

Comey's conduct is praised and damned by both parties at different stages; when he initiated investigation of Hillary's emails Democrats condemned him, said he was favoring Trump, typical conduct of law enforcement types who favor conservatives. When he wrapped up that investigation and reported extensive good grounds to recommend Hillary's prosecution, but then deferred to Lynch's judgement Democrats felt vindicated while Republicans we're aghast. Then when he reopened the investigation because they discovered more of these classified emails on Weiner's laptop the Democrats claimed foul that Comey was interfering with the election while Republicans thought it was great, that finally the truth would be revealed. Then Comey didn't find anything serious enough and again the Democrats felt vindicated.

The Clinton's are wealthy and arrogant, Bill and Hillary have a history of using power and influence for personal benefit and evidently expect accomodation. Hillary's responses to the leaked emails showed she resorted to the unlawful use of a private server despite explicit concerns from DoS and other authorities and that she sent and received classified information by this means, sharing it with others not aithorized knowing it was illegal. She brushed that all off, said she didn't understand the technology, wanted to keep her yoga class schedule confidential but didn't think there was a problem with the classified stuff. We even have an email of hers telling some underling to simply snip off the "classified" label and fax off the rest of the document!

Comey described her conduct as careless, reckless and irresponsible, conservatives wete spellbound at the extensive breaches of security protocol, damning evidence in abundance, but he deferred to Lynch -well done they said then. Now, when he comes up with this email of Lynch indicating she won't let his investigation go too far Comey is in the doghouse with Democrats again.

 

You see what I mean? The polls were off by one point. That is well within the margin of error.

 

But the word "knowingly" is. Do you ever get tired of being deliberately misleading?

 

I quoted you the text of the relevant laws, and explained why the evidence did not support charging her with a crime. You fail to respond to that, and simply re-assert that she is guilty. Come back when you can make an intellectually honest argument.

 

Why is everyone going after Loretta...?...She's wonderful...

 

Yea, and you are wrong. She violated Federal Law because she specifically signed forms and clearances stating she would abide by them. She broke the law and everyone knows it, even if they refuse to admit it.

Sorry, but you are the one being dishonest here and misleading.

 

More unsupported assertions that don't even make sense. She violated federal law BECAUSE she signed forms saying she wouldn't? WTF?

Whether she broke the law has nothing do with the forms she signed. They simply make it easier to hold her accountable if she DOES break the law.

Why don't you try supporting your argument with actual facts, maybe by addressing the points I raised, using the actual text of the laws and policies in question? Rather than just asserting that I am wrong.