@Linda Wood

Creature of any wrong doing in regard to her email/server usage and the two years of lies that went along with it.

Another waste of taxpayer money.

As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support prosecution under any of these statutes for various reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems. Critical to their conclusion was that the emails in question lacked proper classification markings, that the senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to “talk around” classified information, that the emails were sent to other government officials in furtherance of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton relied on the judgment of State Department employees to properly handle classified information, among other facts.

We further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems.

The Midyear team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents.

We analyzed the Department’s declination decision according to the same analytical standard that we applied to other decisions made during the investigation. We did not substitute the OIG’s judgment for the judgments made by the Department, but rather sought to determine whether the decision was based on improper considerations, including political bias. We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.

We therefore concluded that these were legal and policy judgments involving core prosecutorial discretion that were for the Department to make.

That is on pages vi an vii.

Pfffft. That sleazy wench is about as innocent as I am rich. And I’m basically bankrupt.

Oh, and Strzok & Page had no agenda either. They were just texting their ‘opinions’.

In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. As we describe in Chapter Twelve of our report, most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, the suggestion in certain Russia- related text messages in August 2016 that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which Strzok was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views. As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation,

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable. The broader impact of these text and instant messages, including on such matters as the public perception of the FBI and the Midyear investigation, are discussed in Chapter Twelve of our report.

Even the low-hanging fruit that texted about an ‘insurance policy’ and discussions in “Andy’s office” get a pass. They’ve got their ‘sacrificial lamb’ in James Comey and I suspect that he’ll be adequately rewarded for his suffering at some point in time.

#1.1

observations are not only valid but very well stated. But the researcher at https://themarketswork.com/, Jeff Carlson, who is such a great writer and investigator of this subject, has said so far,

"The Executive Summary & Conclusions are disheartening.

However, at first blush, the body of the Report is a different matter.

I would encourage a withholding of judgement for the time being. We are at the beginning stages."

I can no longer access his site on my computer, just my phone, so I can't quote him easily at length, but I recommend reading for background at his site.

@Linda Wood But who the fuck cares? Everyone knows that people only read the executive summary and conclusion, especially when a document is 518 pages, so even if the rest of the report nails Her to the wall, public opinion will already firmly be entrenched in the "see? we told you Her was innocent!" camp.

What a fucking waste of time and money.

#1.1

observations are not only valid but very well stated. But the researcher at https://themarketswork.com/, Jeff Carlson, who is such a great writer and investigator of this subject, has said so far,

"The Executive Summary & Conclusions are disheartening.

However, at first blush, the body of the Report is a different matter.

I would encourage a withholding of judgement for the time being. We are at the beginning stages."

I can no longer access his site on my computer, just my phone, so I can't quote him easily at length, but I recommend reading for background at his site.

@snoopydawg

Mills or Abiden the email system she needed to have. Everything she (they) did was intended to avoid the FOIA rules and The Empty Suit’s decree that usage of the .gov system was mandatory. Which is a farking joke because TES did the same thing she did.

National Archive Administrator: Obama Records Missing

*

Despite this legislation the Obama administration, which claimed to be the most transparent in history, has been shown to destroy and disappear federal records. Thomas Lipscomb, writing at Real Clear Politics reports:

…the accumulation of recent congressional testimony has made it clear that the Obama administration itself engaged in the wholesale destruction and “loss” of tens of thousands of government records covered under the act as well as the intentional evasion of the government records recording system by engaging in private email exchanges. So far, former President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Lynch and several EPA officials have been named as offenders. The IRS suffered record “losses” as well. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy called it “an unauthorized private communications system for official business for the patent purpose of defeating federal record-keeping and disclosure laws.”

Clearly, America’s National Archives is facing the first major challenge to its historic role in preserving the records of the United States. What good is the National Archives administering a presidential library, like the planned Obama library in Chicago, if it is missing critical records of interest to scholars? And what’s to prevent evasion of the entire federal records system by subsequent administrations to suit current politics rather than serve scholars for centuries to come?

http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2018/06/10/national-archive-admin...

He is nothing but a self-serving liar and fraud. He knew what she was doing the entire time and that’s because of text messages sent between the two of them.

#6.1

that proves she Intentionally and willing broke the law . First by making the decision to use it knowing that it was an unsecured server.

2- she did send classified information through it and to people who were not authorized to read them because they didn't have security clearances to do so.

3-after she was told by the members of the Benghazi committee to turn over all of her emails she deleted 30,000 of them. "Mills stated that someone from the state department told her that she could delete Hillary's personal emails." Who did she speak with that said to do that? We don't know because she was not asked about it.

4- Somewhere between 400,000-600,000 emails between Hillary and Huma were found on Weiner's laptop and some of them were marked Classified. Right there is evidence of a crime because they knew that his laptop was not secure and that he did not have the security clearance to receive them.

5- Lynch told Comey not to call it an investigation, just a matter. We couldn't let a presidential nominee be under investigation during her run for it now could we?

6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and gawd knows how much more information will we see after further reading?

The report talks about the 3 other people who were charged and convicted for not securing their classified information. The more recent one was David Petrayous who not only kept classified information in a personal notebook that he left lying around unsecured so that anyone could read it, but he then gave it to his girlfriend to use in her book about him.

He was charged and found guilty. So he went to prison just like that sailor who took a few pictures of the inside of his submarine, right? Wrong. Petrayous was sentenced to 2 years probation and had to pay $100,000 fine!

This is how our justice system works in this country. The people who commit crimes that if normal people committed would be sentenced for decades in prison get special treatment because of their position in society.

Hillary should have been charged for intentionally using her private email server knowing that it wasn't legal and for using it to send and receive classified information. Even if she thought that the letter "C" meant that it was just a number of the alphabet. Yep. She said that.