COMEY BUSTED! FBI Chief FOIA Officer Under Oath Confirms ALL OF COMEY’S Memos Were Classified

I do try to be fair-minded, Te.

If anyone, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Black, White, etc., disregards, neglects, or, flagrantly violates our laws concerning national security and classified information then that person should be charged with the crime committed, given a fair trial, and, if found guilty, punished accordingly. I thought I made that clear in the post you replied to above when I wrote (emphasis added), "And so Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell received, transmitted, and re-transmitted classified information on UNPROTECTED personal email servers. If so, they should be rotting in the same prison that Hillary should be rotting in today!" Whether you agree or not with my viewpoint that Hillary definitely broke the law(s) at least you might be able to think me "fair and balanced".

Parenthetically, does anyone know what the Statue of Limitations is for these kinds of crimes? If it is still possible for Rice, Powell, and Hillary to be charged with crimes after a rigorous, professionally-conducted investigation, then they SHOULD BE!

 

Oh? Please tell us which of the "TWO separate and DISTINCT laws pertaining to the handling of Classified information" shelters any 'ticket-holder' (i.e., Hillary Clinton) from being charged with crimes when she deliberately receives, transmits, and/or retransmits documents containing classified information "IN THE CLEAR", beyond the protections MANDATED for such transmissions!

If nothing else, do you still not comprehend the fact (FACT) that she created and transmitted no fewer than 104 such email documents HERSELF?! How many times do I have to share this link with you? Here it is AGAIN, from the Washington Post, no less... hardly one of the "Right-Wing" sites you detest so much. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...491b9b9e7df_story.html?utm_term=.c84367cebc70

Now, how many of the other THOUSANDS of emails, which she ordered to be deleted even before the server was scrubbed with "BleachBit" might we logically assume also contained classified information...?

Finally, Te -- no, I'm not trying to be 'unfair' to Hillary Clinton. BUT, I do demand that the same standards of justice are applied to her that are applied to all the rest of us.

In Nazi Germany, the 'big-wigs' were 'special' and untouchable.
In the Soviet Union, the 'big-wigs' were 'special' and untouchable.
In Communist China, the 'big-wigs' are 'special' and untouchable.
In every other corrupt, despot-dominated country, the 'big-wigs' are 'special' and untouchable.

And if we have reached the depths of the same kind of reality as those, then we are utterly lost. Do you really not see that?

 

If you are going to be fair minded then did you read what Colin Powell said about his emails that were marked as classified afterwards?

In summary he considered it ridiculous because the content did not justify it in his opinion. Note that Colin Powell was a former general before he became SoS. If anyone would see things the way you are when it comes to security classifications then it would be him. Instead he declared those classifications to be asinine.

Same thing applied to Clinton. The handful of emails where there was some "classified" content was so obscure as to be irrelevant.

In order to put someone behind bars you need to meet the legal standard of BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!

That standard is simply not been met in either case. Remember that the prosecution, in this instance that would be you, has the onus of meeting the burden of PROVING beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. If you want to be considered "fair and balanced" you have to establish your case beyond said doubt. So far you haven't managed to make that case.

Powell and Clinton remain innocent until you can. That is where this stands until you come up with convincing irrefutable proof that Clinton KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY broke the law.

 

The link to the law that pertains is here;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The highlighted phrase is where the burden of proof lies.

Unless you can produce anything in writing or credible witnesses willing to testify under oath that Clinton did as you imply there is no case to prosecute.

Bear in mind that any and all emails that Clinton would have sent and/or received from her staff at the State Dept would have COPIES of them on the government servers. It was IMPOSSIBLE for her to delete those other copies. To the best of my recollection the FBI requested all of those email copies during their investigation as the means to figure out what was deleted.

NOTHING WAS FOUND that incriminated Clinton.

No one has stepped forward to testify that she "knowingly and willingly" intended to violate the law.

Without evidence there is no case whatsoever.

Yes, she was negligent but then so was Powell.

If you seriously want to pursue a case against someone egregiously violating security protocols look no further than the BLOTUS and his completely UNSECURED phones.

Plenty of clear evidence beyond any doubt whatsoever in that instance.

But I am still waiting for the actual evidence against Clinton that meets the legal standard for prosecution. If you can produce I will agree that she should be tried. But so far there is nothing.

 

If you held the security clearances the Hillary Clinton held, it is plaintively obvious and demonstrable that you would be abundantly knowledgeable concerning what the relevant laws, protocols, and mandatory requirements were (and still are). Thus, if you deliberately used an unsecured computer server to send, receive, and resend classified information, would it not be perfectly obvious that you "knowingly and willingly" did so? Did someone put a gun to her head and say, "OK, Madame Secretary of State, you must create, send, receive, and re-send classified information on this unsecured server"...?

Moreover, apropos of your recent posts about other Secretaries of State, the very same thing would be true for Condoleezza Rice and/or Colin Powell. If your faction has identical 'dirt' on Rice or Powell -- then BRING IT! Neither of them is immune to, or above the law -- and neither should Hillary Clinton be, either! I would add that Colin Powell's private opinion of the laws, rules, protocols, and mandatory requirements surrounding national security and classified information doesn't mean a damned thing! Nobody ever made him the supreme determiner of any of those things, no matter which kind of 'Secretary' he was....

Hillary's FBI 'interview' should have begun something like this, and it should have been done with her UNDER OATH --

."You held a TS/SCI-clearance, right? So, we can assume you knew what the hell you were doing...?"

 

Sorry but you endless blathering fails to demonstrate that the Russians didn't influence the election. Keep trying though.

 

No obviously there may be different levels of protection and hers were clearly superior to the ones used by the Pentagon. And my guess is nobody cares what you want to see her swear to.

 

Keep beating the "fruit of poison tree" defense. Its all ya got given the EVIDENCE. Considering the NUMEROUS bullshit conspiracies you have promoted over the years that have PROVEN to be bullshit, I'm not surprised you insist on the bullshit connect the dots speculation that passes for "definitive proof" of anti-trump malfeasance.

Course applying your method to the mountain of circumstantial evidence against trump et.al. would have you screaming "impeachment" in the streets, if you were actually sincere.

 

The FBI Would Be Guilty of Clear Bias if its Trump Investigation Were a Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Why if it were not for double standards, "progressives" would have no standards at all!

Conservatives stood agape last week at the inspector general’s refusal to state the obvious in his 568-page review of the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the Clinton probe: A pro-Hillary political bias led officials to let her off the hook.

While Michael Horowitz’s report highlighted numerous instances of anti-Trump and pro-Hillary bias, in true lawyerly fashion he focused in the conclusion on the lack of “documentary or testimonial evidence” showing that political prejudice “directly affected” the decisions made in the investigation.

This phrasing is hilarious because the methods of proving discriminatory intent are well-established, and such direct evidence of animus (or favoritism) is not required to show that an illegal motive drove an employment decision.

Circumstantial evidence may establish discriminatory intent, circumstantial evidence that racial animus motivated the employer could come in the form of past racist statements or racial slurs, even without the employer tying the employee’s race to the current employment decision. An employer’s past race-based employment decisions would likewise serve as evidence that race motivated the employer’s treatment of this employee.

An employee creates an inference of discriminatory intent by showing that the employer treated the plaintiff differently than similarly-situated employees of a different race (or religion, or sex, etc.).

Thus, an African-American employee who qualified for a promotion, but was rejected in favor of a Caucasian employee, could establish an inference that the employer discriminated against the plaintiff because of his race. The employer must then produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the decision, such as that the Caucasian employee’s sales figures consistently exceeded the African-American employee’s, justifying the promotion.

Now let's compare the Hillary Clinton White Wash and the Donald Trump Witch Hunt.

Here is Lisa Page’s text to Peter Strzok in that context: “He's not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” And his response: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” That statement, if spoken in the context of an employment decision, would be the rarely existent direct evidence of animus.

It provides direct evidence of an illicit motive. That evidence is backed up with the additional circumstantial evidence consisting of anti-Trump and pro-Hillary messages exchanged by Page and Strzok and the other unnamed agents.

Applying the indirect method of proof is equally damning. Hillary and Trump are similarly situated, yet in investigating allegations of illegality, the FBI approached the cases differently. Consider, for instance, the FBI’s approach to questioning witnesses. Following the FBI’s questioning of a tech person who had helped the Clintons at their Chappaqua residence, a text conversation between an FBI employee and an agent included this tidbit:

FBI Employee: ‘boom…how did the [witness] go’

Agent 1: ‘Awesome. Lied his -ss off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,’

FBI Employee: ‘would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal’

Agent 1: ‘I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax – aint noone gonna do sh-t’​

In contrast, when the FBI interviewed Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, the agents reported that they did not believe Flynn had lied. Yet, the DOJ later charged Flynn with lying to investigators to force him to cooperate and hopefully reveal dirt on his boss. Is there a legitimate explanation for this disparate treatment? No.

Consider, then, how these facts would look to a jury considering a discrimination case in which two were suspected of theft. In interviewing witnesses to the events, they use a velvet touch when questioning witnesses possessing information about Hillary, while applying an iron fist in interrogations of witnesses close to Trump. It's obvious discrimination — just like the comparative handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations involved politically motivated discrimination.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/22...-investigation-racial-discrimination-lawsuit/

We are not a fkn banana republic, even though the Obama Administration clearly thought we were. It's highly unlikely that any of the convictions this horrifically biased process produced are going to withstand judicial scrutiny.

 

Not a banana republic? Coulda fooled trump.

 

Show us some proof that they did. What states turned from Hillary to Trump and what did the Russians do to accomplish it?

 

I realize that your opinion takes precedence over the professional assessments of the American Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, foreign intelligence agencies. Gotta say that must be some kinda motivation ya got there.

I also realize that your opinion is predicated on the fallacy that social media had no influence on the outcome of the election.

While also believing:

That the russian fake news factory that was retweeted by BOTH SIDES depending on its targetted audience to maximize dissent and distrust and anger and hate had no impact whatsoever. Cuz, Murka?

That the paid russian trolls and their ability to "hit the hate" button on a high frequency noise campaign had no influence in the massive dissemination of hate, anger and lies? Cuz, Trump?

 

You are right, and very obviously, the FBI did not care what she would answer in their fraudulent, sham 'investigation'. They let her get away with so many crimes against national security and classified information that it makes any honest holder of a government security clearance, past or present, want to PUKE!

.

 

Two Americas: One that follows the law, and those in government that do whatever in the hell they want.

What Did Peter Strzok Do?

Specifically, while working on the Hillary Clinton classified email investigation in August 2016, Strzok wrote that he and unnamed others would “stop” Trump from getting elected. He shared his intentions with at least one other FBI official, attorney Lisa Page.

Strzok isn’t just any rank-and-file guy spouting off in one ill-advised email. His fingerprints were on every FBI investigation that stood to impact Clinton’s presidential candidacy or to hurt Trump before and after the 2016 election.

He was chief of the FBI’s Counterespionage Section and number two in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. He led the team of investigators in the Clinton classified email probe and led the FBI investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election. He was involved in the controversial anti-Trump “Steele dossier” used, in part, to obtain multiple secret wiretaps. He was the one who interviewed Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI only to later learn that agents reportedly didn’t think he’d lied. And Strzok was the “top” FBI agent appointed to work on the team of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion.

The earth-shattering finding on Strzok by the inspector general (IG) confirms a citizenry’s worst fears: A high-ranking government intel official allegedly conspired to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. . . .

Yet, for all of that, Strzok is still collecting a salary, courtesy of taxpayers, at the FBI Human Resources Department. And here’s the chilling part: If it weren’t for the IG’s investigation, requested by Congress, he’d likely still be helping lead special counsel Mueller’s investigation of Trump today.​

 

Why hasn't the attorney general or some other Assistant Attorney General had him arrested if that's the case?

 

Do you know what constitutes a violation of CFR 21 part 11?

Do you know how easy it is to commit such a violation?

Do you know that a single minor violation could shut down the systems that control worldwide manufacturing and distribution procedures?

Failure to stay in STRICT COMPLIANCE of CFR 21 part 11 can cost billions of dollars if the process is shut down.

Do mistakes happen?

Does the FDA shut down corporations for these mistakes or does it issue fines instead?

How about federal banking regulations? How about SEC regulations?

All of the above carry massive penalties, up to and including the complete termination of the corporation itself if it fails to abide by the law. (What happened in 2008 was because the GOP DEREGULATED thereby making the violations legal.)

Mistakes can and do happen by those who are supposed to comply with them.

Those mistakes are treated in the context is which they occurred. If there is habitual non compliance it is deal with a great deal more severely than if it is an inadvertent mistake.

We are NOT dealing someone who KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY violated the law which is the standard on which you must prosecute you still have not provided the irrefutable evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Judicial watch has accomplished many things in 25 years. You have fallen off the turnip truck .. again.

 

What? No proof? I thought so. If the Russians are that good with $300,000 to beat $1.184 Billion of Hillary's propaganda machine, we could learn a whole lot from them.

 

Comey is an American hero. Honest, decent, and competent. He was a great FBI director.

 

You're thinking of the SPLC.

 

Honest, decent, and competent FBI Directors don't leak classified material to the press. Most folks call that person a criminal.

 

Well name one .......

 

His meeting notes were not classified. Most executives keep notes on meetings and phone calls, especially if they encounter a creep like Trump.

 

I'm trying my best to understand what "CFR 21 part 11" and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has to do with Hillary Clinton wantonly and repeatedly breaking laws and protocols governing national security and classified information, but the connection is not clear to me at all.

For others who, like me, knew nothing about CFR 21 part 11, here's an explanation of sorts:
"The FDA has imposed various regulations in the form of “Code of Federal Regulations 21” (CFR21) as a response to soaring costs and security concerns associated with managing the distribution, storage and retrieval of records. Biotechnology, pharmaceutical, drug and medical manufacturers regulated by the FDA need to be aware of the CFR21 regulations surrounding the protection and privacy of consumer data, management of electronic documents and the acceptance requirements for electronic documents and signatures.

Those contracting with any of the above types of companies may also be subject to compliance. The US Regulation Title CFR 21 Part 11 specifically regulates Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures or ERES." Link: https://www.globalsign.com/en/blog/what-is-cfr-21-part-11/

Question: is it possible that you wrote your post thinking it was supposed to reply to a different thread entirely? I've done that myself on occasion.... I just don't get the connection between Hillary and the FDA, or CFR 21 part 11...(?)