Its the Inspector Generals report you're not going to be very pleased with!
And when it's Paul Z and his various personas then it's also a pathological LIAR.
It's about keeping Hillary's name in the news as a trigger for the rubes. Strictly pandering to his base and it makes it look like the alternative was even worse. The worse he gets, the worse she has to be.
There may be a need for an occasional special tribunal and special procedures to manage such matters. It may be rare but when you need it, you really need it.
Face it, the bitch is untouchable.
The FBI has been neutered.
WRT Hillary, yeah, "intent" shouldn't matter.... it surely wouldn't with any of us. I want those who intentionally destroyed and ORDERED the destruction of evidence convicted and sentenced. There is a pile of em. As well as anyone who obstructed the investigation, right up the ladder to Obama and his AG. That's just the e-mail BS.
The FBI/Justice mess...... having higher up internally running cover for the Clintons et al...... using phony "evidence" to open investigations on Trump and his campaign.... they need to be held accountable as well. Separate issues and events.... but clearly tied together by the same players.
I'm guessing you helped Hillary burn the evidence last week and are feeling confident.
And of course YOUR business didn't suffer, you're a lawyer. Try being in construction.....in a DEMOCRAT controlled state.
We are living in some scary times.
Ignorance of the law being no excuse and all that.
bad karma's Link
bad karma's Link
The mens rea is knowingly or willfully, but I think knowingly comes from the decision to use her own server. Knowing how sensitive the information would be, it's hard to understand why one would do this. I have plenty of friends who have had high level security clearances, and not one would ever think this was proper. Several people here have had high level security clearances, and will undoubtedly agree with that statement. I don't care who she is, Hillary has significant legal exposure on this issue. Frankly, she's gotten a free pass because of who she is, not what she did. The prosecutors here would have charged Mother Theresa for these crimes.
Enough is enough, if the criminal criteria is met, the evidence is there, charge, prosecute via trail of your peers and put them away period. Otherwise if its not there quit wasting everyone's time and the taxpayers money. (See option 1 above). Move on.
2. Nav: I have seen the article on dailycaller that you posted that from. Here is the entire code for just 1 law mentioned. Please note the language related to intent-there is plenty in each of the Statutes if you read them related to intent in this case. Now, Bad Karma and I could argue the next 24 months as attorneys if that is true, but I can assure you, there is a legitimate argument to be made both ways. Bad: step in if you agree/disagree. It's not quite the cut and dry issue most of you guys think it is. And back to my original point, which is, we need to be skeptical and critical of our elected officials, but we have people who work hard to hold people (especially from the "other party" accountable). 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information US Code (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (f) 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. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. (h) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to— (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection; (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection. (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, §?18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, §?1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §?804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §?607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
1. Thanks Spike for the cite, and yes, I have read it. Along with concluding I am mentally ill are you going to threaten to beat me up now that we don't agree on something?
Please show us CF rubes where Spike threatened to beat you up.
Meanwhile, back at the Clinton Foundation fondering...
Here's Why There's No More Free Passes For The Clinton Foundation
(Note: internal links at link)
A new Department of Justice probe of the email and charity fraud scandals won't end well for Bill or Hillary...
Until recently, the Clinton Foundation has been monitored by the IRS, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, and multiple state government authorities that are seeded with persons loyal to either the Clintons or the Obamas.
But now it appears key authorities may finally be turning strict attention toward answering tough questions about public filings of Clinton “charities” inside and outside the United States. When these powerful organizations engage motivated minds, they will wish to concentrate on a few areas that have long gone begging for attention.
The first time the Clinton Foundation was investigated, between 2001 and 2005, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and others could not seem to find obvious and escalating frauds as a supposed presidential library complex in Little Rock, Arkansas, also “fought HIV/AIDS internationally” from unregistered offices in New York and Massachusetts without ever obtaining required audits of worldwide activities.
Strangely, as the first investigation wound down, evidence in the public domain suggests that the Clinton Foundation also defrauded the National Archivist by making demonstrably false representations in a binding legal agreement.
For example, there is no evidence the IRS provided final approval to the Clinton Foundation to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally” as a tax-exempt purpose by Nov. 18, 2004, the date the presidential archive was officially donated.
That Nov. 18, 2004, agreement is nowhere to be found today on the Clinton Foundation website and in public filings despite the charity’s more than 13 years of widespread solicitation across state and national boundaries using telephones, mail, and the internet.
The next major investigation started in December 2009 when the French government launched a detailed look into UNITAID, a multilateral international organization — primarily funded by France — that has sent more than $650 million to arms of the Clinton Foundation engaged, at least in theory, in fighting HIV and AIDS.
Reports concerning this investigation, written in French and published in 2010 and 2011, show that French government authorities, like their U.S. counterparts, missed the heart of the problem posed by the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation, by its own description, started soliciting funding for its fight against HIV and AIDS early in 2002, though its authorized charitable status didn’t change until March 2004, after the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was officially recognized on March 24, 2004, in Arkansas.
Applications made to the IRS, to various states and to foreign governments for tax exemption and solicitation rights to pursue this radically different mission, are not available on the central portal operated by the Clinton Foundation, nor forthcoming, yet, from the governments concerned.
Federal tax filings for this entity for the partial year in 2004 and for 2005 aren’t available on the Clinton Foundation website, perhaps because they show substantial activities that seem to fall far outside tax-exempt purposes approved by the IRS.
In addition, these and other tax filings fail to explain payments to members of the Clinton family for services received and for reimbursement of expenses by donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Even though there is no public record that the Clinton Foundation ever was authorized to control a supposed charity “fighting HIV/AIDS internationally,” the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was supposedly liquidated as of Dec. 31, 2005, with all of its worldwide activities and obligations supposedly taken over by the parent foundation. There is no evidence in the public domain that the merger was lawfully completed in each U.S. state and foreign country in which either entity operated.
From 2006 through 2009, the Clinton Foundation solicited funds and received a majority of its growing revenues, in theory, to fight HIV and AIDS internationally. Required audits were not prepared to strict U.S. requirements.
Moreover, versions of these audits on the Clinton Foundation website exclude key “combining” statements that show for 2007 through 2009 just how substantial HIV- and AIDS-specific financial amounts are compared to the combined total. The Clinton Foundation attempted to reorganize in 2009, but available public filings could place multiple individuals in significant jeopardy.
For example, claims made to the IRS in applications for federal tax exemption on Form 1023, under penalties of perjury, are false and materially misleading concerning numerous entities created after Sept. 4, 2009, to carry on unauthorized activities in which the Clinton Foundation had been engaged starting in 2002.
To get to the heart of the vexing problems that allowed the largest unprosecuted charity frauds ever attempted to flourish from January 2001 forward, one must ask many questions of central figures in federal, state and foreign governments.
How did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, while U.S. attorney in Maryland, miss the fact that the Clinton Foundation was promoting use of potentially adulterated HIV and AIDS drugs from October 2003 forward, even as he took until May 2013 to help win a $500 million set of penalties against the Indian manufacturer of the generic drugs?
Why was an African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?
How did Rosenstein miss obvious errors in the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 (originally submitted in 2011 with amended versions submitted in 2015) concerning a $37.1 million donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund at a P.O. Box address in Baltimore, Maryland, that was never declared, as required, in key states like New York?
Why did Rosenstein (and many other officials, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman), fail to require Laureate Education and the Clinton Foundation to explain how they organized the “Clinton Global Initiative University” and why the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 through 2016 don’t explain what Bill Clinton did for the $17.6 million he was paid as part-time chancellor while he held key roles at the Clinton Foundation?
Former Congresswoman Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat, reports to jail for a five-year term in federal prison following her conviction of being part of an $800,000 charity fraud. Why was this African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?
Former presidents in either the Democratic or Republican parties are not above the law. Now it’s up to President Donald Trump to make this fact abundantly clear.
2. Annony: I'm a business man first, but you're probably correct on your assessment. Here's the bottom line. Some of you guys are convinced a deep state exists and there is no fairness for rich people or elites or especially the Clintons (would you say the same about the Trumps?). I believe there are good people in Washington who have the nations best interest at heart and do the right thing, or at least try to do the right thing. Evidence of that is the investigations of Clinton and Trump. Not that I am naive enough to think any of us would be treated with the kid-gloves these high-level politicians are. But if they cross the line far enough, I think they end up with consequences eventually. But I also think our job as American's is to keep a critical eye on them and have these discussions. I don't think I'm going to change BS CF minds on that-it's interesting that most people see the evidence in a way that backs up their own position. But that's another thread.
So instead of manning up and admitting you lied about your insinuation about Spike threatening to beat you up, you chose to double up on your blathering insincerity ie lies. You have chosen to take the path of a fraud and a lying capon and will be treated as such.
Of course in the liberal mind...the ways justify the means. Abuse of power- oh its for our own good. Free speech is great....unless you are speaking against their philosophy.
They still don't get that this is exactly why Trump was elected...he is an outsider cleaning the swamp protecting the American people from abuse of power...our 'System' has been seriously compromised.....some swamp cleaning is necessary.
EXACTLY! Why's this so hard for some to grasp???
Annony Mouse's Link
Different standards?
Huma Abedin Backed Up Classified Emails to Anthony Weiner's Computer, Despite Telling the FBI She Had Not Done So
Lock 'em up.
EXCLUSIVE: Huma Abedin backed up her emails to Anthony Weiner's laptop after leaving the State Department – even though she said on oath and to FBI agents that she did no such thing
An examination of emails released by the State Department shows that backup copies were created in the dates after Clinton left the State Department in 2013
The messages were archived from 'BBB Backup' and 'LoaderBackup' from a BlackBerry Bold 9700
The FBI discovered the emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop after it was seized just weeks before the 2016 election
At least five messages released this week were marked 'Classified' which included discussions on Israel and other Middle Eastern issues from 2010 - 2012
Huma Abedin had told FBI that she did not have a method of preserving the emails she exchanged on a private server with her boss
She also claimed to have lost most of them as a result of the transition from the State Department - which she left on January 20, 2013
By Alana Goodman For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 10:42 EST
Huma Abedin backed up copies of her emails with Hillary Clinton to her pervert husband Anthony Weiner's laptop, DailyMail.com can disclose - conflicting with her account to the FBI and in court that she did not preserve the conversations.
An examination by DailyMail.com of emails released by the State Department shows that backup copies of many of Abedin's work-related messages with Clinton were created in the dates after Clinton left the State Department in early 2013.
The emails, released at the end of December, show that they had been put on Weiner's laptop by a BlackBerry archiving program.
A tech expert told Dailymail.com that Abedin would have to have activated the backup program and may well have plugged her device into the laptop - raising further questions over her testimony to the FBI.
...
Like Clinton, she was cleared by then FBI director James Comey in the wake of the investigation into the former Secretary of State and her staff's handling of classified material.
Kallstrom also went on to call the Clinton Foundation a “criminal conspiracy” and “giant slush fund.”
