FBI and DOJ news you may have missed

[Sensei]

Yeah, she probably got away with something. Guess what? I've had cases with murderers, child molestors, rapists, robbers, etc. who got away with it to. Plenty of PC, not beyond a reasonable doubt. No media attention, no politics, just basic "this is how the system works". I suspect you'll find the folks who routinely work in major felony prosecution will not find the Clinton charging decision terribly unusual, even if it's not the area of law they are familiar with.

I too THINK that she is guilty. However, I can see how the specific decision not to bring charges might be reasonable as there is a difference between what I think and what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

What I do not buy is this notion that there is no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias impacted the pace, tone, and vigor of the investigative tools brought to bear on the Clinton machine (Hillary, Huma, Mills, et al). There is a virtual cornucopia of text and witness statements documenting a softball approach to Clinton. Had the Midyear investigators and DOJ prosecutors conducted this investigation like any other case, someone in that orbit would have very likely plead out or been convicted of a felony.

Finally, Peter Strzok has been called before Congress to explain himself. I suspect that his goose is cooked. No FBI agent can plead the 5th on actions taken during an investigation of their official duties without being immediately suspended pending termination. At the same time, he stands very little chance of saying anything under oath that is going to improve his longevity without it being a load of crap. I predict that Trey Gowdy walks away with his scalp.

[BehindBlueI's]

We struggle to find an example of anyone breaking the classified documents rules as bad as Hillary - the only examples I know of were "no kidding" spies during the Cold War. I made the comment about admin punishment to point out that Soldiers are punished for even minor infractions of the rules for Classified documents.


Sorry, I do not see the gap in "burden of proof". The "proof" has been shown over and over - everyone just calls "squirrel" and changes the subject.

Ok. Did any non-spy get a criminal charge?

[critter]

My problem with the Hillary "matter" is that it appears to have been a farcical, theatrical production with the outcome written into the script by those in the "Writers Echelon" of both the DOJ and FBI. We have no idea what the actual evidence collected would have been had it actually been collected and presented as if it were an actual non-matter. We'll never know as much of it has been destroyed -- some of it destroyed by the same matterers who were supposed to have been mattering the matter.

[Sensei]

We struggle to find an example of anyone breaking the classified documents rules as bad as Hillary - the only examples I know of were "no kidding" spies during the Cold War. I made the comment about admin punishment to point out that Soldiers are punished for even minor infractions of the rules for Classified documents.


Sorry, I do not see the gap in "burden of proof". The "proof" has been shown over and over - everyone just calls "squirrel" and changes the subject.

That is incorrect. Fmr. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was investigated by the DOJ IG for mishandling SCI documents. In his case, he took physical copies home, stored them in his office, and there was absolutely no doubt that he was aware of their extremely sensitive nature. The IG made a criminal referral under 18 U.S. Code § 1924 and prosecution was declined by the Natl Security Div of DOJ.

This case, which was arguably more egregious than Clinton’s, was specifically discussed as a reason for not prosecuting Hillary.

[Sensei]

We struggle to find an example of anyone breaking the classified documents rules as bad as Hillary - the only examples I know of were "no kidding" spies during the Cold War. I made the comment about admin punishment to point out that Soldiers are punished for even minor infractions of the rules for Classified documents.


Sorry, I do not see the gap in "burden of proof". The "proof" has been shown over and over - everyone just calls "squirrel" and changes the subject.

Oh, and don’t forget the case of David Petraeus. In his case, he not only took home TS an SCI documents, he also SHARED THEM WITH HIS MISTRESS WHO WAS WRITING A BOOK. Keep in mind that he was the DIRECTOR OF THE CIA WHEN HE DID THIS. Then, he lied to FBI agents on multiple occasions. You have one guess as to how much prison time he served for these felonies.

[Sensei]

I am curious - is there anyone on P-F that actually held a military or other equal Federal clearance believe that the standard of gross negligence has not been met? I have seen people administratively punished for extremely "minor" offences with "Secret" document/digits much less "Top Secret".

I have held both DOD and DOJ TS clearances. I think that the gross negligence standard was met, but it is not a lock and there is probably some reasonable doubt. Moreover, we must be careful to consider that the standards for gross negligence has probably changed a bit over the past decade. We cannot apply today’s standards to conduct and actions performed just a few years ago because Hillary’s case itself likely changed that standard. When Hillary committed her dipshittery, there was a ton of case precedent for high ranking government officials getting caught with their proverbial hand in the security cookie jar and getting slaps on the wrist. Gonzalez, Petraeus, and a few others committed similar if not more egregious violations and served probation or less. Thus, I can see how the DOJ was reluctant to proceed against a former SOS who was running for POTUS.

[David C.]

I have held both DOD and DOJ TS clearances. I think that the gross negligence standard was met, but it is not a lock and there is probably some reasonable doubt. Moreover, we must be careful to consider that the standards for gross negligence has probably changed a bit over the past decade. We cannot apply today’s standards to conduct and actions performed just a few years ago because Hillary’s case itself likely changed that standard. When Hillary committed her dipshittery, there was a ton of case precedent for high ranking government officials getting caught with their proverbial hand in the security cookie jar and getting slaps on the wrist. Gonzalez, Petraeus, and a few others committed similar if not more egregious violations and served probation or less. Thus, I can see how the DOJ was reluctant to proceed against a former SOS who was running for POTUS.

You and BBI keep saying there is reasonable doubt. The server existed. The emails were redirected there. It is not like she could argue she forgot to remove a file from her briefcase when she left the office for the day. So, how is there any reasonable doubt?

Also, there is no requirement to establish intent or gross negligence in order to prosecute under UCMJ. Simply leaving TS SCI files on your desk or in a locked desk (rather than an approved safe) is enough to convict. Are you telling me 18 USC is different?

Regarding Alberto Gonzales (the Republican AG as you first referred to him), I don't care if his imminence the Pope breaks the law, prosecute him. You are proposing exactly what I described earlier as fuck-fuck games. We are supposed to be equal under the law.

I do not understand how you believe Gonzales and Petraeus committed more egregious violations, because the true scope of the Clinton intelligence breach has not been publicly defined. The assumption has to be that while her illegal server was up and running that all communications to that server were compromised and found their way to foreign intelligence services.

That multiple actors, from both parties, continue to leak and misdirect TS and TS SCI information is disgusting. That no administration, no DOJ, and no Congress has had the will to stop it is disappointing. It has hurt intelligence and military operations overseas by compromising means and methods, etc. It has cost lives, and it will cost many additional lives in the future. It has to stop.

[David C.]

My problem with the Hillary "matter" is that it appears to have been a farcical, theatrical production with the outcome written into the script by those in the "Writers Echelon" of both the DOJ and FBI. We have no idea what the actual evidence collected would have been had it actually been collected and presented as if it were an actual non-matter. We'll never know as much of it has been destroyed -- some of it destroyed by the same matterers who were supposed to have been mattering the matter.

One of the silliest aspects of this "investigation" by FBI is the difficulty FBI had recovering emails and texts. I suspect they never made the tasking phone call to Fort Meade because they did not really want the information recovered.

[critter]

One of the silliest aspects of this "investigation" by FBI is the difficulty FBI had recovering emails and texts. I suspect they never made the tasking phone call to Fort Meade because they did not really want the information recovered.

The Hillary Hiccup as it currently exists is that we have a system that puts high emphasis on legal precedent. I would submit that we don't know whether any president would have applied considering the investigation was not conducted in the typical, professional fashion (i.e., no storming of the bathroom to seize the server, backups, devices, squeezing witnesses, charging everyone around her, strategic use of immunity, recorded testimonies under oath, et. al.,). Apparently that ship has fully sailed. At this point, it is what it is and that's all it is. I would personally love to see the old hag dragged by the ankles, kicking and screaming, up the steps of Capitol Hill with her face bopping on every freaking step all the way to the newly constructed gallows. That would be better than porn.

Perhaps something will pop from the foundation.

[Sensei]

You and BBI keep saying there is reasonable doubt. The server existed. The emails were redirected there. It is not like she could argue she forgot to remove a file from her briefcase when she left the office for the day. So, how is there any reasonable doubt?

Also, there is no requirement to establish intent or gross negligence in order to prosecute under UCMJ. Simply leaving TS SCI files on your desk or in a locked desk (rather than an approved safe) is enough to convict. Are you telling me 18 USC is different?

Regarding Alberto Gonzales (the Republican AG as you first referred to him), I don't care if his imminence the Pope breaks the law, prosecute him. You are proposing exactly what I described earlier as fuck-fuck games. We are supposed to be equal under the law.

I do not understand how you believe Gonzales and Petraeus committed more egregious violations, because the true scope of the Clinton intelligence breach has not been publicly defined. The assumption has to be that while her illegal server was up and running that all communications to that server were compromised and found their way to foreign intelligence services.

That multiple actors, from both parties, continue to leak and misdirect TS and TS SCI information is disgusting. That no administration, no DOJ, and no Congress has had the will to stop it is disappointing. It has hurt intelligence and military operations overseas by compromising means and methods, etc. It has cost lives, and it will cost many additional lives in the future. It has to stop.

The issues surrounding gross negligence are that since at least 2008, DOJ has had a policy that before proceeding with a felony mishandling case, prosecutors must be able to prove that the defendant new that the material was classified at the time it was mishandled, lost, transmitted, compromised, etc. That policy effectively meant that the material had to be clearly marked. It was not good enough to be able to show that the person should have known as was the case prior to 2008 or in all of the cases prosecuted under UCMJ. Because the material on Clinton’s server was not clearly marked as SCI/TS, or the markings were added after the fact, the prosecutors could not meet their own departmental standards for gross negligence. The prosecutors also felt that the lack of clearly marked classified material on the server was exculpatory evidence that Clinton at least made efforts to keep the server clean of sensitive data - bye bye gross negligence threashold, bye bye felony mishandling. Moreover, they could not show that Clinton shared the material with unauthorized persons which would have been required for one of the misdemeanor mishandling charges.

Contrast this with Gonzo and Petraeus. Both of them took clearly marked TS and even SCI materials home. Petraeus went so far as to share it with his mistress which is why he was charged and eventually plead down to misdemeanor mishandling. While Clinton’s mishandling may have been more damaging, these would have been easier to prove - hence the criminal referral for Gonzalez and actual conviction for Petraeus.