Ego vs $50million and permanently hurting your brand and businesses? Don't think so - he wouldn't be flying around in a private jet if he put his ego before so much.
Trash has a seriously disordered personality, probably caused by a privileged, wealthy life (money is the root of all evil), always bullying his way through life with money, etc, and maybe some "daddy issues" like Austin Powers and dubya.
He won't be President, and he may not come out of Cleveland as the candidate.
.
"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"
"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."
what a ing joke. going to be real interesting when the leaks start coming out from pissed of FBI agents.
full transcript here
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...1&noRedirect=1
She still used unusually bad judgement. Judgement that shows how she thinks she is above rules.
I find it hilarious that Trump has had to state this though.
And Trump stating the system is rigged when he wantonly uses lawsuits to threaten people in real estate deals etc is also incredible hypocrisy. About 4000 lawsuits in 10 years he has been involved in, good Christ.
Our choices are so incredibly bad.
Give me Romney v. Obama over again. Give me Florida Bush v. Bernie
anything
Yea for political corruption!FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...mepage%2Fstory
Repug witch hunters get kicked in the teeth again.
The FBI director said that there was evidence Clinton committed several felonies but they weren't going to prosecute based off a incredibly stupid and obvious intentional misreading of the statute!
Not to mention that Clinton supporters now have to admit that she is dribbling on her shirt mentally re ed because she's officially too stupid to be charged with a crime. They basically gave her the insanity defense.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4Da0lUCNV“Nothing has changed my view that if the choice comes down to Clinton or Trump, I would still prefer Clinton,” said Tom Nichols, a professor at the Naval War College who writes for the Federalist, a conservative-leaning publication. “This was classic Clintonism: en led, reckless, breaking the rules and beating the rap. It's infuriating, but it's not the same menace to American national security as the one presented by a man too ignorant to know the first thing about the American nuclear deterrent, who has promised to spark a civil-military crisis by ordering war crimes, and whose foreign policy boils down to "bombing the " out of bad guys.”
there was no intetent to break the law except there was atleast 110 classified emails she opened
doing it over and over is showing intent
Not to nitpick, but the verse is actually, "For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil"
CLINTON: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.
Most of those emails — 110 of them — were included among 30,000 emails that Clinton returned to the State Department around the time her use of a private email server was discovered. The three others were recovered from a forensic analysis of Clinton's server. "Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said. Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said.
CLINTON: "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." NBC interview, July 2016.
THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.
He said the marked emails were "a very small number." But that's not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. "Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
CLINTON: "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related" to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.
Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were "several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000" that had been returned by Clinton to the State Department.
CLINTON: "I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn't hold up in the investigation. Clinton "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.
CLINTON: "It was on property guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches. ... The use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure." News conference, March 2015.
CLINTON campaign website: "There is no evidence there was ever a breach."
THE FACTS: The campaign website claimed "no evidence" of a breach, a less categorical statement than Clinton herself made last year, when she said there was no breach. The FBI did not uncover a breach but made clear that that possibility cannot be ruled out.
"We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account," Comey said.
He said evidence would be hard to find because hackers are sophisticated and can cover their tracks. Comey said his investigators learned that Clinton's security lapses included using "her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries." Comey also noted that hackers breached the email accounts of several outsiders who messaged with Clinton.
Comey did not mention names, but a Romanian hacker who called himself Guccifer accessed and later leaked emails from Sidney Blumenthal, an outside adviser to Clinton who regularly communicated with her.
CLINTON: "I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Comey did not address Clinton's reason for using a private server instead of a government one, but he highlighted the perils in routing sensitive information through a home server.
The FBI found that Clinton's personal server was "not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail," the director said.
A May 2016 audit by the State Department inspector general found there was no evidence Clinton sought or received approval to operate a private server, and that she "had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices." Courts have frowned on such a practice.
In an unrelated case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the purpose of public records law is "hardly served" when a department head "can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to" by maintaining emails on a private system.
What the FBI Investigation Found
Comey said today there were some occasions when Clinton's information could have been breached. He cited one instance in 2013 when the email software on the server was removed in order to be replaced with a newer version.
"That didn't remove the content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge unfinished jigsaw puzzle and dumping all of the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of email fragments ended up in the server's unused, or slack, space," he said.
Comey added that the FBI "did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain in its various configurations since 2009 was hacked successfully."
The FBI determined that "hostile actors" did hack into the accounts of Clinton's confidants and that her travel overseas into "the territory of sophisticated adversaries" could have put the security of her correspondence at risk.
"Given that combination of factors, we assessed it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account," Comey said.
What the FBI Investigation Found
Comey said today that 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain some form of classified information at the time they were sent.
He went on to specify that Clinton was on seven of those chains that were classified as top secret.
Former DOJ Lawyer: Hillary Can Be Prosecuted
A former Department of Justice attorney said Tuesday Hillary Clinton's actions regarding her use of private email can lead to criminal prosecution, regardless of the FBI's decision to not recommend charges.
Jacob Frenkel told CNBC he disagrees with FBI director James Comey regarding a key piece of the puzzle: intent.
"What I found a little bit more troubling is the continued and repeated reference to intent," Frenkel said. "They found no evidence of intent. There was one other point that he made during the press conference that I found a little bit troubling, which was they could not find any other such case historically.
Would someone please explain to me what you think he means by this:
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 quan ies 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 cir stances, 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.
So if my husband does the same exact thing she did and they let her off because they couldn't find any prior case to support bringing criminal charges, that he would be able to get off on the basis of her case? How can my example be reconciled with the bolded above and what are they deciding now that's different from this person engaging in this activity that he would face consequences and be subject to security or administrative sanctions and she does not?
Disgusting. And this election is going to be even worse.
Had Comey recommended an indictment none of this information would have been made public until well after the election was over. The administration could have sat on this much like they are trying to do with the release of the Clinton Foundation emails. He just provided tons of sound bites for Trump to use basically laying out all of the felonies she committed. I found it very odd to come out and release all of their findings like he did.
What about the Clinton Foundation part? and her aides/IT guy? They get off scot free too?
BREAKING: FBI finds John Wilkes Booth "extremely careless" in discharge of firearm.
Well, he is a registered republican after all...
The biggest loser in all this is Bernie - unless the Clinton Foundation investigation is still going on.
And other people might have faced punishment for similar actions, Comey said. While previous cases have not resulted in criminal prosecution, "those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions," he said.
She's likely going to be our next President. I'd say the biggest loser in all this is all of us.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
