Trump Wins Bigly (Page 30): The FBI decided they couldn't prove intent to commit a crime and that's the end of the case on Hillary. The FBI has given enough probable cause for search...

Triple G

slocumeddie wrote:

Don't be afraid, clown.....But next time you get a speeding ticket, tell the officer you had no intent to speed.....

What bullshit you spew.....!!!

The FBI decided they couldn't prove intent to commit a crime and that's the end of the case on Hillary. The FBI has given enough probable cause for search warrant and trump appointed judges have not declared that the FBI is acting in bad faith which means FBI has evidence of intent on trump. Watch it play out.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Wyantry wrote:

Your post reads, in part: ”. . . There is NO EVIDENCE that Hillary had INTENT to deceive the FBI . . . “

That does not square with the destruction of devices (hard drives, phones, &c.) that occurred!

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/05/hillary-clinton-email-device-destuction-nr-sot.cnn
~~~~~

From the FBI records vault — the FBI report:
FBI REPORT: https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton
~~~~~

The public report of the FBI (Press Release) — by Director Comey — concluded there was insufficient evidence of INTENT TO DECEIVE, and so reported to the DOJ:

Statement by FBI Director Comey — https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. . .”

“. . . Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

“. . . With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. . .”

“. . . We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. . .”

“. . . She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. . .”

“. . . Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. . . There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. . .”

“. . . In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

Please note, SPECIFICALLY:
”All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.” [Emphasis added — wyantry]

The evidence revealed thus far in Trump’s affair, supports allegations there WAS “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct . . . or efforts to obstruct justice.”

At least from what has been revealed so far.

b Your post reads, in part: i ”. . . There is NO... (show quote)

In Clinton's case:

“. . . In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

In Chump's case:

The evidence revealed thus far in Trump’s affair, supports allegations there WAS “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct . . . or efforts to obstruct justice.”

I don't support Hillary... in any way but, Chump is a clear and present danger to the democracy of this country and must be stopped.... he is a TRAITOR! as well as a con artist, and an overall disgusting human being.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

slocumeddie wrote:

Don't be afraid, clown.....But next time you get a speeding ticket, tell the officer you had no intent to speed.....

What bullshit you spew.....!!!

You having a "slow day" eddie?

The evidence revealed thus far in Trump’s affair, supports allegations there WAS “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct . . . or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Chump is a clear and present danger to the democracy of this country and must be stopped.... he is a TRAITOR! as well as a con artist, and an overall disgusting human being.

Guillotine!

Guillotine!

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

slocumeddie wrote:

QaLosers.....!!!

Yep! “Qagain”

The Aardvark Is Ready

BooIsMyCat wrote:

You having a "slow day" eddie? br br b... (show quote)

Overall disgusting human being. That suits you to a T.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

The Aardvark Is Ready wrote:

Overall disgusting human being. That suits you to a T.

Guillotine! Guillotine! Guillotine! Guillotine!

The Aardvark Is Ready

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Guillotine! Guillotine! Guillotine! Guillotine!

Do you have a stuttering problem? BTW, my snarky comment was only cause you just showed your true colors in another thread with an insult.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

The Aardvark Is Ready wrote:

Do you have a stuttering problem? BTW, my snarky comment was only cause you just showed your true colors in another thread with an insult.

And... you continue.

Just remember: You reap what you sow.

The Aardvark Is Ready

BooIsMyCat wrote:

And... you continue.

Just remember: You reap what you sow.

Read the post again. I stated this was in response to your comment on another thread, where you insulted me cause you attributed something someone else said to me. This was posted before your apology.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

The Aardvark Is Ready wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-fbi-commentary/commentary-what-the-fbi-didnt-say-about-hillary-clintons-email-idUSKCN0ZM1TG
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/classified-information-what-you-need-know

Second article which I just found, attributes the ones marked classified to human error.

Thanks there is no statement in those links that proclaims she sent items marked classified. Nor does it definitively say she unmarked any items. Am I right ?

The Aardvark Is Ready

DennyT wrote:

Thanks there is no statement in those links that proclaims she sent items marked classified. Nor does it definitively say she unmarked any items. Am I right ?

You are correct in that regard.

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

Give it a rest!

The traitor among you is trump!

WRONG!

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

Wyantry wrote:

Your post reads, in part: ”. . . There is NO EVIDENCE that Hillary had INTENT to deceive the FBI . . . “

That does not square with the destruction of devices (hard drives, phones, &c.) that occurred!

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/05/hillary-clinton-email-device-destuction-nr-sot.cnn
~~~~~

From the FBI records vault — the FBI report:
FBI REPORT: https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton
~~~~~

The public report of the FBI (Press Release) — by Director Comey — concluded there was insufficient evidence of INTENT TO DECEIVE, and so reported to the DOJ:

Statement by FBI Director Comey — https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. . .”

“. . . Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

“. . . With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. . .”

“. . . We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. . .”

“. . . She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. . .”

“. . . Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. . . There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. . .”

“. . . In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

Please note, SPECIFICALLY:
”All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.” [Emphasis added — wyantry]

The evidence revealed thus far in Trump’s affair, supports allegations there WAS “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct . . . or efforts to obstruct justice.”

At least from what has been revealed so far.

b Your post reads, in part: i ”. . . There is NO... (show quote)

Since it was stated by a judge in Bill Clinton's case that the president has the authority to store documents where ever he wishes, that sure puts a crimp in the entire story.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Penny MG wrote:

Since it was stated by a judge in Bill Clinton's case that the president has the authority to store documents where ever he wishes, that sure puts a crimp in the entire story.

Penny
FYI
Trump is not the President.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Penny MG wrote:

WRONG!

NO! You are Wrong!

And, those of you who support him are traitors also.