"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" Sir Walter Scott. Lies can only beget more lies to cover the first; cover-ups can only beget more cover-ups; failure to prosecute crimes and criminals not only begets more crimes and criminals, but begets precedents of non-prosecution, non-punishment and non-exposure, to be used for others to escape justice and exposure; e.g. Petraeus' (fellow CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission attendee with Clintons) handling by FBI and DOJ used by Clinton to be used by others.
FBI ATTEMPTS SPECIAL NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS FOR FBI AGENTS INVOLVED IN CLINTON CASE
ATTORNEYS INTEND TO ASK FOR 'THE CLINTON DEAL' FOR THEIR OWN CLIENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED HILLARY'S ALLEGED OFFENSES.
18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felonyWhoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
18 U.S. Code § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
18 U.S. Code § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally.Perjury generallyWhoever--(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 88–619, § 1, Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 995; Pub. L. 94–550, § 2, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 231, 629 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 125, 35 Stat. 1111; June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XI, § 19, 40 Stat. 230).
More than 25 additional provisions are in the code. For construction and application of several such sections, see Behrle v. United States (App. D.C. 1938, 100 F. 2d 714), United States v. Hammer (D.C.N.Y., 1924, 299 F. 1011, affirmed, 6 F. 2d 786), Rosenthal v. United States (1918, 248 F. 684, 160 C.C.A. 584), cf. Epstein v. United States (1912, 196 F. 354, 116 C.C.A. 174, certiorari denied 32 S. Ct. 527, 223 U.S. 731,56 L. ed. 634).
Mandatory punishment provisions were rephrased in the alternative.
Minor verbal changes were made.
1994--Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $2,000” in concluding provisions.
1976--Pub. L. 94–550 divided existing provisions into a single introductory word “Whoever”, par. (1), and closing provisions following par. (2), and added par. (2).
1964--Pub. L. 88–619 inserted at end “This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.”
This is a list of parts within the Code of Federal Regulations for which this US Code section provides rulemaking authority.
This list is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules provided by GPO [Government Printing Office].
It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the GPO site.
US STATE DEPT TO REOPEN INVESTIGATION OF HILLARY AFTER FBI REFUSAL TO RECOMMEND PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT RELATED TO EMAILS AND PRIVATE UNAUTHORIZED SERVERS PLURAL
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.
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.
1) J. CRAVEN: a) Director Comey starts of with apparent disingenuousness; is this an "update" or summary announcement of a conclusion, not just update, and some spin for a mandate to go to final recommendation that will be highly opposed no matter which way you find? b) And how do you have an "update" without prior notices on the status of the case by you or a spokesperson, an "update" of what prior notices? c) Why do you start off not only with body language showing deception, but with deception as to what you are delivering here, what you are leading into, the unprecedented nature of this impromptu press conference (from our point of view), and the real nature of this presentation in the first place? d) Why did you not at the outset of the FBI investigation, say openly: ANYONE prejudging this investigation, what it will or will not find, or should or should not find, before its completion, by either endorsing anyone who is a subject or person of interest for any political office (as has Obama and a host of political officer holders and says FBI and investigation is unwarranted, and/or irrelevant, and/or will find nothing), especially with primaries and a convention still pending even, or those calling for the indictment, conviction and summary jailing of such persons, in both cases, is interfering with and possibly attempting to influence, the scope, depth, pace, content of the investigation?
2) J CRAVEN INTRO: a) First of all Director Comey, what is this "We" recommend; why do you try to pass-off and diffuse responsibility even as it has been off to you by the AG? b) Why do you even assume this responsibility and duty, that is not yours under the U.S. Constitution and separation of powers, that is the duty of the AG, based upon recommendations from prosecutors, not investigators, to recommend seeking indictments or not, based on different factors, but applied in standardized ways in comparable cases, and with standard protocols in cases sui generis? c) Are you now or have you ever been a co-member or co-attendee at Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg or any other such closed power networks and societies that Hillary and Bill Clinton are also members of, that have openly declared and lobbied for Hillary in 2016?; and if so, why have you not disclosed such associations and recused yourself per the relevant statutes on duty to disclose and recuse in cases of even the appearance of conflicts of interest and bias, such as 28 USC 455 for all magistrates, judges and magistrates, and others dealing with not only avoiding actual but even the appearances of conflicts of interest undermining public perceptions of and confidence in the impartiality and equal applications of and by law and government institutions? ALLEGED POSSIBLE TIES BETWEEN COMEY AND CLINTON FOUNDATION
3). a) Director Comey, what evidence can you give to support your summary and unsupported claim, or perhaps braggadocio, of a "tremendous amount of work" on this issue over one year?; b) Why do you presume to self-evaluate and praise your own work and with nothing from you to back it up--quite the opposite with only 3 1/2 hours of interview of Hillary Clinton after all that is on the table?
4). Specifically, when it was only recently, you had a 3-and-one-half-hour interview with Hillary, only recently interviewed some of her aides, allowed her to summarily eliminate emails, under subpoena at the time, thus forcing the taking more time for FBI to have to find and reconstruct them.
5). Further the investigation was delayed and compromised by Clinton's refusal to assist and testify in the State Dept. IG Investigation according to the IG's own report; the IG from where she used to be Sec of State;
6). Further, as a matter of basic critical thinking, the use of the word "tremendous amount" of work says nothing about the quality, effectiveness, appropriateness, scope, or depth of that work.
7). Further just from the information released so far, the possible crimes being investigated are possible predicate crimes that would lead inevitably, to derivative crimes if proved true, and go far beyond, as you put it: " the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.";
8). Specifically, improper use of an unauthorized, and inherently security-compromised private server, or even multiple ones;
9). Specifically the intent behind the unauthorized server, to circumvent records and other public duties and requirements of public office, as well as knowingly or recklessly compromising classified communications, materials and media-communications networks.
10). There is possible 18 USC 4 Misprision of Felony, 18 USC 242 Conspiracy Under Color of Law, and a host of others just from the facts stipulated to by all sides in terms of what was or was not turned over and why in their own accounts and documents; and it must be noted that you and all in FBI, indeed all citizens, are also bound by 18 USC 4 Misprision of Felony, 18 USC 73 Obstruction of Justice, 18 USC 242 Conspiracy Under Color of Law, 18 USC Conspiracy Against Rights, and the U.S. Constitution; as you noted, and not to any person, office. or title-holder, but to a body of Supreme Law and embodied principles guiding and trumping all other law, regulations,codes or whatever legal.
11). HILLARY EMAIL ORDERING SENIOR AIDE TO REMOVE HEADERS AND SECURITY CLASSIFICATION IN ORDER TO SEND NON-SECURE DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH SENDING SECURE FAX
13).This is when even that criminal and FBI disgrace J. Edgar Hoover whose name still adorns the FBI HQ Building noted:
15). Further, you are a trained prosecutor and U.S. Attorney. What are the compound odds: of two particular people, like AG Lynch and Bill Clinton, one the husband of someone under FBI criminal investigation, and, also, at least a "person of interest" in allegations of RICO crimes by the Clinton Foundation; then also, the odds of these two having events scheduled at the same day, and also odds in the time frame; odds of both in a given state, then odds also for their respective aircraft to arrive at times near each other, then odds also in the same city and also airport; then also odds at least one of them has the means to learn and seek the travel plans and other person; then odds that one is also the exact person and decision-maker the other needs to see; then odds one is also has means to get around the high profile security perimeter of the person being sought, and also able to meet with that other person, AG Lynch, for over 30 minutes while also under FBI protection mandated by law to know, stop and report felony crimes in their presence or that they discover including by their own?
16). Do these various and separate probabilities, including the timings of all of them relative to upcoming events and imperatives, all these separate "alsos", discrete yet interrelated probabilities, that had to come together for Clinton to "hook-up" with the AG, do all of them combined and multiplied to create this "perfect storm" of corruption and compromise of security, not appear either beyond the compounded odds like Powerball or Mega, or pattern and probability evidence of coordination, conspiracy and spin?
17).How does Bill Clinton know or have access to the AG's travel itinerary and what are the security implications for the AG and others?
18).Why and how was Clinton able to breach the AG's security perimeter?19). Were there any witnesses to the conversation between the AG and Clinton and if not why not?
20). What about Bill Clinton being a subject of interest or more on the Clinton Foundation and allegations of RICO crimes?
21).Why would the AG or even FBI with her, not see the possible legal issues and tell Clinton to leave immediately otherwise possible charges of attempts to interfere with, compromise or intimidate (by virtue of who and what he is)an official FBI investigation?
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.
22) J. CRAVEN: 20) Excuse me Director Comey, "a case of intense public interest"? Are you trying some dark humor?
23) Suppose I were say an Air Force Missile Launch Officer,never mind candidate for president with an active security clearance, under formal FBI criminal investigation; not charged with anything, but enough predicate evidence of something to warrant a FBI investigation and use of scarce human-power away from dealing with a complex and growing threat matrix; not presumed guilty or innocent because I am not charged with anything; and everyone says FBI is honest, the Director has integrity; so do I a) keep my clearances?; b) keys to the nukes?; c) classified briefings?; d)apply for promotions and endorsements?; and e) if I were to run for political office, and anyone powerful were to support me, suggesting that any charges or investigations of me were politics, conspiracy theories, traitors,nonsense or worse, would that not show either disrespect for, and possible intimidation of FBI and its investigation and investigators, and/or suggestion that the FBI is in the tank or perhaps even scared of an untimely death?
MARINE OFFICER TO BE RELEASED FROM SERVICE FOR ALLEGED IMPROPER HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED MATERIALS WANTS SAME TREATMENT AS HILLARY CLINTON GOT
26) Did you give warning of a possible Civil War over this whole process and contempt for law serially evident on all sides in it?
27) What in the U.S. Constitution, and separation of powers, allows a subordinate investigative agency like FBI, to assume the role of the AG and DOJ its superior, in the duty and power of recommending and thus deciding, as a proxy for the AG, on continuation of an investigation and/or whether or not to seek an indictment, because the AG in her conduct, had abrogated her duties and powers due to self-compromise and induced further conflict of interest, and, given the Constitutionally-mandated special role and authority of the AG with the supposed independence to go after or investigate anyone including the president?
28) J. CRAVEN a) Why do you, as do so many Americans, engage in rank braggadocio and presume to be the judge of your own case, your own critic and assessor of the quality and extent of your work, especially when all we have is not evidence or standards for assessing the predicate yet to be supported with evidence not mere assertion however theatrical, forceful and full of apparent sincerity and certitude? b) Why do you not simply present what you claim to have done and let others assess rather than simply accept you hardly disinterested claims and conclusions?
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.
29) J. CRAVEN: Director Comey, a) When you say the investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton's use of "A" [or only one personal e-mail server?] personal email server during her time as Secretary of State, why are you not mentioning that FBI also had a role in the IG investigation itself, not just from a referral from it? b) And is it not true the IG report mentions Secretary Clinton's non-cooperation, refusal to be interviewed that delayed and obstructed not only the IG investigation, and led to the present situation-crisis that a major presidential candidate, is under criminal investigation, on the eve of becoming the nominee and likely winner some say, of the upcoming presidential election, and thus the real reason you are giving this unprecedented press conference?
30) J. CRAVEN What evidence is there from you opposing the facts, fact patterns and optics presented by your critics, indicating and supporting the following charges against you and others? That: the Obama administration, the FBI and the Clinton's have intentionally and predictably allowed this situation, of winding up at the last moment, before an upcoming presidential election, with a major candidate under criminal investigation, still publicly outright lying according to you about the status of her investigation, not criminal but some "security review", withholding and controlling releases of emails and capabilities under subpoena, she was not authorized to have, and now leaving Americans and Congress two "choices": a) stop the investigation and rule not enough evidence (by keeping the investigation sandbagged from finding any) trusting on the short memories, fear of Trump and new crises to let Hillary move on; or b) allowing the investigation to continue, and/or recommending to go for an indictment and prosecution, and unleashing chaos and total repudiation of the system, new discoveries undermining its core institutions, and most importantly, possibly allowing Trump in and putting Hillary out.
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.
31) J. CRAVEN: a) Why do you not mention the findings of the State Department IG with respect to lack of cooperation, obstruction and refusal to be interviewed by Hillary, the issue of multiple private servers used, the purpose of the private servers (to avoid public records statutes and requests and to have a means to isolate from any transparency or accountability, some communications from others, while on duty as a public employee, and without having to account for what is asserted to be personal versus official communications) as part of the evidence of intent, mens rea, when such patterns of behavior are legally probative of intent? b) Why do you claim lack of evidence of clear criminal intent and knowledge of circumventing prohibitions on having a private unsecured server, when you have clear and repeated conduct, of setting up more than one even unauthorized and prohibited private servers, for "convenience", not even two separate accounts through one secure and administered server, to conduct both private and personal business, and receive gains while on public duty, without having to account for which is or was private or public business or indeed possible private business having influence in public business? c) Why do you refer to no evidence of Hillary having lied to FBI, unlike Petraeus, when the fact is she has been insulated from, and allowed to control access by, FBI, to be interviewed and after all and its importance for national security, she only at the last, and clearly imperative moment interviewed only 3 1/2 hours? d) Have you not helped her avoid having to lie to FBI as she has serially to the public according to you, your own statements, by allowing her to control the pace, scope, depth, content of your own investigation by her summary deletions of emails, obstructions of and refusals to assist the IG investigation? e) What unlike any other case are you not considering evidence, that you yourself have acknowledged, of continual deception by Clinton in her public statements, as evidence of mens rea, of knowledge of conduct that is criminal as well as evidence of gross and depraved negligence in operating and handling classified materials and capabilities? f) In law is it not the case that mens rea can be and is inferred from the likely and foreseeable consequences, by a reasonable and prudent person of a given act? g) If I drive a car into a crowd of 100 people outside a disco as an act of terrorism or depravity, and Joe Smith dies, can I be charged with the intentional and premeditated murder of Joe Smith even as I have never met him and did not know him? The answer is yes, my act was likely or certain to lead to someone's death it does not matter if I knew who personally, same with Hillary's actions and the unsecure servers, cover-ups, lies in public not having had to make them to FBI as she has been kept away from them.
HILLARY CLINTON CONTINUING EMAIL CLAIMS COLLAPSE UNDER FBI PROBE
LEAKED (from "non-HACKED" servers reveal Hillary briefed on emerging sex scandals problematic for her
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.
32) J. CRAVEN: a) Director Comey, you go on with how long it has taken to get to this point, you now note in your presentation of multiple private servers used, multiple administrators, multiple retirements or decommissioning of old servers, all prohibited practices with multiple possible breaches of security, how is this alone not evidence of conspiracy to serially violate various laws on avoidance of conflicts of interest as well as transparency and accountability in all official duties and maintenance of security protocols and regulations while doing so? b) Why do you dance around the fact that Clinton's refusal to assist and be interviewed by, the State Department IG, and FBI and other agencies, not moving to interview her earlier, and for more than 3 1/2/ hours, has produced this last-minute crisis and is clear evidence of Clinton mens rea and criminal intent and perhaps your own fears of going up against the Clintons and/or collusion with them? c) Why do you not mention in your comments, intentional deletions by Clinton, and that the fragmenting of data intended to be destroyed completely, and that was not, and had to be reconstructed in time-consuming ways, all served to obstruct competent and thorough investigations by both the IG and FBI as well as are probative indicia of mens rea of knowledge of criminal conduct that would be admitted in any proper court of law? d) Even known pubic deception by Hillary to which you have alluded, why are they not probative evidence of mens rea as there is no need to cover-up, or lie about what is clean only what is and what one knows to be dirty or problematic in some way?
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.
33) J. CRAVEN Why is it these multiple, unauthorized, undisclosed when set up as authorization would not have been given, the clandestine existence and retirements of these servers, and fragmentation of undisclosed data that had to be reconstructed over extended time periods and with considerable costs of scarce resources, do not all speak to you as they normally do, loudly on criminal motive, intent and knowledge of criminality of these actions to create, utilize and destroy without authorization illegal servers and engage in other criminal acts conscious of being criminal acts?
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”).
34) J. CRAVEN: a) Director Comey, again are you not giving a long list not only of reasons why FBI has taken so long to arrive at this point, and why, your own recommendations, as to what to do with your findings, findings that you have no business making, and should, as a matter of the U.S. Constitution itself, that you are sworn to uphold, serve and protect, should be rejected and indeed never made? According to J Edgar Hoover, hardly some bleeding-heart liberal and civil libertarian, allowing FBI the role of recommending what to do with evidence gathered makes the FBI a kind of "Gestapo"; it is the role of the AG or a Special Prosecutor if the AG is unable or unwilling to act. And really presenting but not calling it, evidence of intent of obstruction and refusal to participate in, (and evidence of FBI not having interviewed Clinton long ago for more than 3 1/3 hours to get some guidance for, the investigations) by Hillary Clinton does not make it so it only shows possibly your own mens rea as well as dereliction of duty b) Is not one of the oldest means of engineering "findings" by an official investigation not only to stack the committees with people whose interests and proclivities make them and their findings predictable with no coordination or explicit directives needed (You noted when asked no disagreements among those involved in your own decisions that is striking) along with proscribing the time and scope and depth of an investigation to ensure not finding certain things? c) When you say no one knew what you would announce or decide today, what does that mean or indicate really? What is the purpose of security clearances and vetting except to find a certain kind of person not only with certain capabilities, but also without certain capabilities: to become a whistle-blower, to be unpredictable how they will decide or act when push comes to shove, with no one watching, what interests do they have and what values have they internalized driving their behaviors and actions when not monitored?
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.
FACT CHECKERS AGREE ON NUMEROUS BLATANT LIES BY HILLARY ON EMAIL SERVERS
36) J. CRAVEN Again, why is it these multiple servers, unauthorized, undisclosed when set up as authorization would not have been given, illegal servers, the methods taken to set them up undisclosed, with retirements of these servers and fragmentation of undisclosed data that had to be reconstructed over extended time periods and with considerable costs of scarce resources, why do they all not all speak loudly on criminal motive, intent and knowledge of criminality of these actions to create, utilize and destroy without authorization illegal servers and engage in other criminal acts conscious of being criminal acts?
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.
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).
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.
WIKILEAKS RELEASES 23K NEW EMAILS SHOWING SIMPLE CLASSIFIED (C) OR UNCLASSIFIED (U) DESIGNATION FOR EACH PARAGRAPH
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.
37) J. CRAVEN: Who was and is this Guccifer who claims to have hacked and has plead guilty to some hacking of Hillary's and other servers? Why was there high priority extradition of him, interrogation, plea of guilty by him and now according to some accounts he is dead?
IS GUCCIFER DEAD? RUMORS PRO AND CON
SNOPES ON GUCCIFER MISSING STORY FALSE BUT SNOPES SAYS GUCCIFER DID INDEED HACK CLINTON SERVERS IN CONTRADICTION TO COMEY CLAIM OF NO EVIDNECE OF HACKS
"An astounding Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today says that the Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar (known as Guccifer), who successfully gained access to all of the private and government emails of Hillary Clinton, was discovered missing yesterday by agents from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who were sent to interview him at the US jail he was supposed to be in—and his whereabouts are still unknown."
The claim didn't get very much traction until 5 July 2016, when FBI Director James Comey announced that the Bureau would not be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton. That announcement kindled interest in the earlier report that Guccifer had mysteriously disappeared from his jail cell ahead of an FBI interrogation.
Rumors that Lazar had disappeared from (or died in) custody are false and were refuted in a statement from the City of Alexandria Sheriff: Marcel Lehel Lazar, a federal inmate also known as Guccifer, is at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Va. He is alive and has never been missing from this facility.
The rumor of Guccifer's disappearance originated with a single source: the blogger known by the pen name "Sorcha Faal" of the political conspiracy site whatdoesitmean.com.RationalWiki describes that site outlet as "sensational" and "outrageous":
HACKER GUCCIFER CLAIMS HACKING CLINTON EMAILS
WIKILEAKS 30,000 PLUS EMAILS FROM HILLARY COMPUTER SYSTEM FBI SAYS NO EVIDENCE OF BEING HACKED AND THAT FED GOVENMENT NEEDS 27 MORE MONTHS TO PROCESS PRIOR TO RELEASE TO PUBLIC
HILLARY'S MISSING EMAILS
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.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/13/gestapo-america.html PLEASE NOTE: For those unfamiliar with the biography and work of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, in case anyone thinks he is some kind of "wing-nut"--left or right: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/about-paul-craig-roberts/ and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost..
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.
ATTORNEYS INTEND TO ASK FOR 'THE CLINTON DEAL' FOR THEIR OWN CLIENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED HILLARY'S ALLEGED OFFENSES
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.
- LikeStatement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System [EVOLVING] RESPONSE TO IT.
- Laz Sanchez, Founding Member of Leaders Excellence at Harvard Square / Energy Industry Technologist /… "I just did my Evelyn Woods speed reading and this is awesome!!! I can't wait till lunch break..."James Craven, Professor of Economics and Geography (semi-retired) "Thanks so much I just started on it it is a work in progress, since Comey did not stick around for questions I am creating my own press conference to go into his whole presentation point by point. Stay tuned." Robin DuBay, Category Leader, Senior - Electric Distribution Sourcing at Pacific Gas and Electric Company :"The Clinton's have a long legacy of getting away with everything. Another script for House of Cards. Wake up people. Special Prosecutor."
- Robin DuBay, Category Leader, Senior - Electric Distribution Sourcing at Pacific Gas and Electric Company :"Claire and Francis Underwood. House of Cards. Hillary and Bill Clinton. House of Clinton's." Chris McFarland, Training/Operations Manager; Information Assurance Security Officer, Man of Action, Ft Buchanan,…:"Boom. The hammer has just dropped. Excellent read, and spot on."
- James Craven, Professor of Economics and Geography (semi-retired):"Thank you so much for stopping by and to read and consider these critical issues of our times and this is an evolving essay to test and unravel these representations, counter-representations, with solid evidence, law, reason and logic exploring contradictions in their own accounts in their own words not my versions of what they said, what they said, and take it from there where the mainstream media and others refuse to go without fear or favor."- From https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/statement-fbi-director-james-b-comey-investigation-secretary-craven?trk=mp-reader-card