FBI and DOJ news you may have missed

[BehindBlueI's]

Appreciate the thought.

It's going to take something huge to even begin to restore my faith in "the system". I'm not seeing anything on the horizon.

It is a "system", and like everything else has issues.

I see a lot of parallels even in local, non-political, decision making on who gets charged. Prosecutors want slam-dunk cases, and federal prosecutors want slam dunk with a foul and a free throw cases. I've got a huge batch of "exceptionally cleared - prosecution declined" cases were probable cause exists for an arrest but the prosecutor feels the case is too shaky in front of a jury to justify the resources that would be used to try it. These are robberies, people shot, etc. Major felonies, but ones that few people care about.

Nobody is going to charge a candidate for major political office on a "maybe we win/maybe we don't" case just before an election. Clinton was definitely a "maybe" case, in my quasi-informed opinion I'd put it at a coin flip. If you lose, the appearance that law enforcement was used to eject a candidate from the race is going to be massive and that will be the narrative from then on.

A lot of people are going to see their preconceived notions validated in these reports. I think a lot of "outsiders" will also compare it versus what they think the CJ system is like, some black and white letter-of-the-law machine, vs the much messier reality. I'm much more inclined to believe self-interest and institutional preservation mattered a lot more to a lot more people than any amount of D vs R.

[Spartan1980]

My personal opinion is that Clinton or Mills might have been indicated for this, but securing a conviction would have been an uphill battle. I base this on my relatively limited understanding of the circumstances that all of the evidence destruction was done by a 3rd party, and there is nothing to link that destruction directly to Clinton. This goes back to the notion that DOJ had no desire to indict a major party candidate unless the case was rock solid.

We've come a long way since the Nixon years, huh?

[David C.]

We've come a long way since the Nixon years, huh?

I don't recall Nixon enriching himself while in public office like LBJ, or like Clinton/Gore/Obama have done afterwards. There is also a difference between the DOJ being reluctant to prosecute a sitting president and FBI/DOJ weaponizing FISA warrants and ignoring multiple violations of TS SCI.

How many people in the military or CIA, etc. have been disciplined, fired, or sent to prison for improperly securing TS or TS SCI information? For merely leaving the files on their desk, or in a locked office drawer rather than a safe? Same comment for secure email and phone comms.

Regarding the server and phone destruction, I am still absolutely aghast. As I private citizen that worked for a company that was named in a Federal lawsuit, I would still be in prison had I destroyed evidence like that. Either the law applies equally or we have no rule of law.

[BehindBlueI's]

How many people in the military or CIA, etc. have been disciplined, fired, or sent to prison for improperly securing TS or TS SCI information?

Well, disciplining and firing aren't really options for a now-civilian who's not holding a job you can be fired from. So, how many have been sent to prison? How many were dealing with classified materials not properly marked as classified?

[David C.]

Well, disciplining and firing aren't really options for a now-civilian who's not holding a job you can be fired from. So, how many have been sent to prison? How many were dealing with classified materials not properly marked as classified?

My point was that citizens, along with folks in the military and civil service are often treated very differently than the "political class" that infects the halls of government in DC. I am not going to play fuck-fuck games whether the information was properly marked as classified, that is political double-speak. She clearly broke the law by having a separate server and email address. She clearly hid that. She clearly resisted providing the data. So, 18 USC violation for improperly securing TS information, conspiracy, and obstruction. Ignorance is no excuse, as stipulated in the relevant section.


ETA The whole notion that somehow FHRC was "not aware" or not subject to DOS "procedures" regarding email, comms, etc. is ludicrous on it's face. She is a Yale-trained lawyer. She worked (and was fired) from a Congressional Committee for mishandling information back in the 1970s. USC, not DOS administrative procedures, governs.

ETA: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information.html

https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05...t-information/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.9886c1d79f88

[BehindBlueI's]

I am not going to play fuck-fuck games whether the information was properly marked as classified, that is political double-speak.

You don't have to play "fuck-fuck games" because you're sumdood on the Internet, not a federal prosecutor who's going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was intentionally broken, and do it in one of the biggest fucking media circus cases ever. You think a jury isn't likely to find reasonable doubt when presented with the fact it was improperly marked? It can be dismissed as political double speak on an Internet post about how angry you are. It's going to be a hell of a big deal in a courtroom. She doesn't have to prove she didn't know. The prosecution has to prove she did. She doesn't have to prove she didn't commit a crime. The prosecution has to prove she did beyond a reasonable doubt, and on all elements.

My point was that citizens, along with folks in the military and civil service are often treated very differently than the "political class" that infects the halls of government in DC.

Then how many have been sent to prison at any link in that food chain for a comparable offense? Discipline and firing, yes, but again what are your options for someone who's not in the military and who's already left the job? You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you any longer.

[David C.]

You don't have to play "fuck-fuck games" because you're sumdood on the Internet, not a federal prosecutor who's going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was intentionally broken, and do it in one of the biggest fucking media circus cases ever. You think a jury isn't likely to find reasonable doubt when presented with the fact it was improperly marked? It can be dismissed as political double speak on an Internet post about how angry you are. It's going to be a hell of a big deal in a courtroom. She doesn't have to prove she didn't know. The prosecution has to prove she did. She doesn't have to prove she didn't commit a crime. The prosecution has to prove she did beyond a reasonable doubt, and on all elements.



Then how many have been sent to prison at any link in that food chain for a comparable offense? Discipline and firing, yes, but again what are your options for someone who's not in the military and who's already left the job? You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you any longer.

How does the separate (private) server with a single TS email (IIRC, there were several dozen) on that server NOT show intent?

How does the fact that FHRC is no longer IN government affect the ability to charge her? What prevents a letter being written to the bar for ethics violations if nothing else?

Why not at least depose her under oath (ahem) LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?

Forgetting FHRC for a moment, how many DOS employees have been prosecuted, lost their jobs, or been disciplined administratively for allowing/enabling the email reroute or knowing about and failing to report (again a chargeable offense). Surely downloading an illegal and unauthorized software switch shows intent, doesn't it? Was unauthorized hardware also installed? Does that show intent?

At some point, these hyper-legalities and tortured explanations have to be supported and sustained by the good folks of Peoria, Fayettville, Tulsa, etc. Remember that little part of government of the People, by the People, and for the People?

What I see are a bunch of folks with a great dental plan that will not do the job they have sworn to do.

Do you get to decide not to clear leather to defend yourself or another because you think will not be successful? When did we reach the point that a US Attorney will not try and do right because they may not win?

[Sensei]

My point was that citizens, along with folks in the military and civil service are often treated very differently than the "political class" that infects the halls of government in DC. I am not going to play fuck-fuck games whether the information was properly marked as classified, that is political double-speak. She clearly broke the law by having a separate server and email address. She clearly hid that. She clearly resisted providing the data. So, 18 USC violation for improperly securing TS information, conspiracy, and obstruction. Ignorance is no excuse, as stipulated in the relevant section.


ETA The whole notion that somehow FHRC was "not aware" or not subject to DOS "procedures" regarding email, comms, etc. is ludicrous on it's face. She is a Yale-trained lawyer. She worked (and was fired) from a Congressional Committee for mishandling information back in the 1970s. USC, not DOS administrative procedures, governs.

ETA: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information.html

https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05...t-information/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.9886c1d79f88

I’d say that Hillary was punished for failure to secure classified information - the American voters effectively stripped her of all future public office. A humiliating defeat at the hands of what at least half of the country considered to be the national joke. Moreover, my understanding is that the DOS is in the final stages of revoking her security clearance and her name has been purged from a DOS Fulbright fellowship. Taken together, the sting of that humiliation must be similar to when she opened that envelope in 1973 from the DC Bar and saw her exam score; in an instant her dreams of Beltway fame were replaced by visions of Arkensas.

Think about it - all those years shoveling Bill’s shit and kissing Obama’s well oiled ass only to have a self-righteous prick like Comey issue a verbal reprimand for the entire world to see. What further punishment could you possibly want?

[David C.]

A fine and five years confinement for removing/failing to secure classified information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

Fine and additional five years for conspiracy. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Not sure if she or her staffers or FBI director/asst. director get to eat the obstruction charge for destroying the hard drives and phones.

[ranger]

I’d say that Hillary was punished for failure to secure classified information - the American voters effectively stripped her of all future public office. A humiliating defeat at the hands of what at least half of the country considered to be the national joke. Moreover, my understanding is that the DOS is in the final stages of revoking her security clearance and her name has been purged from a DOS Fulbright fellowship. Taken together, the sting of that humiliation must be similar to when she opened that envelope in 1973 from the DC Bar and saw her exam score; in an instant her dreams of Beltway fame were replaced by visions of Arkensas.

Think about it - all those years shoveling Bill’s shit and kissing Obama’s well oiled ass only to have a self-righteous prick like Comey issue a verbal reprimand for the entire world to see. What further punishment could you possibly want?

I want her in the jail cell I would have been in if I had done any of those things when I had a SECRET or TOP SECRET clearance for three decades