FBI: HILLARY IS ABOVE THE LAW. Is this possible? or false flag
DOES THIS LADY REALLY BELIEVE SHE IS ABOVE THE LAW?
Who is really above the Law? Hillary or FBI , or Mr. Comey
for making a wrong
suggestion? Is this a real institutional aim?
Does this suggestion can affect the autonomy of US Court
System?
READ THIS.. what comes
inside brackets Is my comment
In a surprising
statement which concluded moments ago, FBI director James Comey announced that Federal officials have decided not to pursue
federal charges against Hillary Clinton for her private email setup, an
announcement that will send a shockwave throughout national politics.
FBI to recommend DOJ not pursue charges in
Clinton email investigation: "No charges are appropriate."
VIDEO location: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/fbi-recommends-no-charges-against-hillary-clinton
This site is also the source of this document.
….
In a press briefing
at the bureau's headquarters in downtown Washington, Comey said investigators
and prosecutors had concluded there was not sufficient evidence to push forward
with an indictment against Clinton, clearing her of a federal investigation that
has loomed over her presidential campaign for nearly a year. Comey’s
announcement comes just three days after the former secretary of State sat for
a 3.5-hour interview with the FBI on Saturday, and just a few hours before
President Obama is set to campaign with Clinton in Charlotte, N.C.
The punchline of
Comey statement is that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t face charges over her e-mail
practices while serving as Secretary of State because there was no
"intentional misconduct" and there was "no clear evidence"
of intentional violation of the laws.The FBI's conclusion will now be referred
to the Justice Dept for a decision.
FBI Director Comey: No "intentional
misconduct" in connection with sorting of Clinton's emails.
[ The FACT is that e-mails
.. are part of the whole Clinton’s strategy to use the State Sec to collect
money for the coming elections .. as many report said . she got it from Saudis
to depose the Libyan President .. and from many other corporations .. Does the
FBI or Mr Comey imply that such misconduct was No "intentional
misconduct"?. .. It seems instead a carefully conned work. .. What a
ridiculous situation the FBI or Mr Comey is creating? Do they think this statement will change
the mood of the US electorate in favor of this crook lady? .. If so, that aim is condemned to fail.]
THE FBI admits that
Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless" .. so enough to violate several US
Laws .. even though Mr. Comey or the FBI suggest "NO CHARGES" AGAINST
HILLARY CLINTON.
FBI Director: No "clear evidence"
Clinton and staff intentionally violated laws, but were "extremely
careless"
He adds that the
decision, if agreed to by the Justice Dept, would remove one of the biggest
remaining obstacles to Clinton’s presidential bid, putting an official end to
questions about penalties for her use of a private e-mail server, though the
issue may continue to resonate on the presidential campaign trail
Still, the FBI
director admitted that Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” with
e-mail and that it’s “possible” hostile actors gained access to Clinton e-mail
system however no direct evidence of it found though.
What is shocking is
Comey's admission that Clinton
used not one but several different email servers, adding that 110 emails
contained classified information and 8 contained top secret information, he
also reported that Clinton did not turn over "several thousand"
emails to the FBI and added that due to Hillary's sloppy set up, it is possible
that "hostile actors" got access to Clinton's emails.
FBI Director Comey: 110 emails found to have
contained classified information at the time they were sent.
Yet, despite all
these "facts", the FBI has decided not to proceed with recommending
charges.
It appears that the
FBI is implying that the only reason why no charges will be filed is because
there was no "intent", and yet according to the US criminal code, intent
in this case is not required for prosection:
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful
possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through
gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost,
stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has
been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and
fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to
his superior officer— Shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As the Hill adds, the juxtaposition is likely to inflame
White House critics, who have insisted that political pressures would prevent
any chance of an indictment for Clinton, regardless of the damage to national
security. Obama has previously weighed in to dismiss concerns about the
investigation — to the ire of Republicans and federal investigators.
Last week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that she
would defer judgment to the FBI and career Justice Department prosecutors,
following a private and extremely controversial 30-minute meeting with former
President Bill Clinton. The decision left Comey as the public face of the
investigation, in what some viewed as an opportunity for the hard-nosed
maverick to buck political pressures and act against Clinton.
“Is it impossible
for the FBI not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton?” her
presumptive general election opponent, Donald Trump, said on Twitter this
weekend. “What she did was wrong! What Bill did was stupid!”
The FBI began its probe connected to Clinton last summer,
when inspectors general at the State Department and federal intelligence
agencies referred Clinton's "homebrew" email arrangement to the
Justice Department for review. The bespoke setup might have jeopardized
sensitive national secrets, investigators warned.
Roughly one-in-15 of
the work-related messages that Clinton sent or received on the private server
have been classified at some level, according to the trove of 30,000 emails
that she handed over to the State Department. Twenty-two emails were classified
as top secret — the highest level of secrecy.
In May, the State
Department's inspector general released a scathing report claiming that Clinton
had never asked to use the unconventional setup while in office, and that the
request would have been denied if she had. Comey has been under the gun to
finalize the investigation before the presidential nominating conventions later
this month.
While the FBI
director has insisted that he had no deadline to complete the probe, a delay
past the end of the month would have been interpreted as a sign of trouble for
her campaign.
Some of the initial
reactions were less then excited by the FBI's admission that while Clinton may
have been "extremely careless" she did not commit a crime:
Says the man who
once indicted me over a 23-word email that encouraged my team to save
subpoenaed documents https://twitter.com/recode/status/750349802269990912 …
Says the man who
once indicted me over a 23-word email that encouraged my team to save
subpoenaed documents https://twitter.com/recode/status/750349802269990912 …
Hillary is
innocent damnit. Just like Corzine and my friends on Wall Street.
Expect much more on this in the coming days.
* * *
BELOW ARE COMEY'S FULL
PREPARED REMARKS:
Good morning. I’m
here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s
use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.
After a tremendous
amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and
referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision.
What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we
found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
This will be an
unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more
detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American
people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I
have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department
of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am
about to say.
I want to start by
thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have
a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so
grateful and proud of their efforts.
So, first, what we
have done:
The investigation
began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in
connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her
time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified
information was transmitted on that personal system.
Our investigation
looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly
stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal
statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either
intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a
misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems
or storage facilities.
Consistent with our
counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine
whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal
e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.
I have so far used
the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our
investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary
Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers
during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices
to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment
were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned
in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an
understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for
government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of
hours of effort.
For example, when one
of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013,
the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content,
but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and
dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail
fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched
through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be
put back together.
FBI investigators
have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary
Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed
as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to
any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the
e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail
contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or
whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was
not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred
to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails
returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been
determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time
they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information
that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret
information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is
the lowest level of classification. Separate
from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them
Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the
e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related
e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary
Clinton to State in 2014. We found
those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the
years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected
to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived
government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the
same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other
agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us
recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State.
Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail
fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of
e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies
have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent
or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails
found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
I should add here
that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were
intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that,
like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or
e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was
not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there
was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we
discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when
she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
It could also be that
some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those
deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and
sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
The lawyers doing the
sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of
all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied
on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails
among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary
Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms
missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in
the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
It is also likely
that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State
and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted
all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices
in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
We have conducted
interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that
sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility
because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that
sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable
confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting
effort.
And, of course, in
addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved
in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s
personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those
involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton
herself.
Last, we have done
extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by
hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
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.
Separately, it is
important to say something about the marking of classified information. 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.
While not the focus
of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of
the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail
systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified
information found elsewhere in the government.
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. But, given the nature of the system and of
the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see
such direct evidence. 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. We also assess that Secretary
Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of
people and readily apparent. 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.
So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our
recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the
prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on
evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our
recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and
engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may
be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the
matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before
bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the
evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the
context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in
the past.
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.
To be clear, this is
not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this
activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are
often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we
are deciding now.
As a result, although
the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are
expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be
intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was
throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that
this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No
outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were
many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including
people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant,
and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did
the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here
in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be
part of this organization.
....
----
===
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario