I get anywhere from 60 to 125 work emails a day. So that's average out 25,000 emails each year. There is no way I can remember all of them accurately. What if I were questioned?
And yet Hillary hasn't even been questioned under oath. Wonder why?
T Y R A N N Y !!!!!!
If you actually read the Stone indictment, his lies went far beyond simple memory lapses.
That being said, I've never had anyone charged with lying to the FBI. Now, I did have one client who was believing his own BS on the polygraph exam, but they expected that. that client took a plea.
As to what Hedgehunter wrote, even Google translate didn't help.
For the most part. people are pleading because they are financially ruined long before it gets to a jury so they plead something just to stop the bleeding. These prosecutors are counting on exactly that.
"In the DC area, it's probably more of a viper's den."
See my above comment.
In Philly the "vipers den" is putting it mildly. When they came to my door they were as gracious as a Maitre D' at a free buffet. I asked for I.D. and allowed them entry. I asked them whats up?.... and the response was "we would like to ask you a few questions" and they were smiling. "About what"?....."Is your uncle..."..."Hold it right there", I need to call my attorney." Their mood changed immediately and their voice was "matter of fact"....."we'll be getting back to you." See ya fellas. There were not kidding because they did get back to me and put me through the ringer, but, with my attorney present who kept me safe, or as safe as he could. If EVER approached by the FBI don't say the sky is blue without your attorney present. Better yet just say I have to make a call. Whatever DON'T say a word singalo. You have been warned even if you THINK you have no involvement what so ever. If they are there, they are there for a reason.
and condoning lying to Law enforcement?
There was a time when I was in the camp that said if you don't have anything to hide you don't have any reason to not let them search your vehicle or answer their questions.
At this point in time I would never let a police officer search my vehicle without a warrant And I sure as heck am not talking to them if there's any slight chance that they're investigating me for any reason even if I am innocent. If I if I was the witness to a crime or something like that I would certainly help them out any time and I'm not going to impede any investigation or disrespect them in any way but I am not going to just dish myself out on a silver platter
Annony Mouse's Link
A Republican darling lies and all the Republicans party hacks fall all over themselves defending it.
Same shit. Different smell.
So it’s ok to go after a whistleblower and we aren’t allowed to know why. Why isn’t Chris Wray stopping this?
Via Daily Caller:
A federal court refused to unseal government documents that permitted the FBI to raid the home of a reportedly recognized whistleblower who, according to his lawyer, delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a presidentially appointed watchdog.
The U.S. District Court of Maryland’s Chief Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner, a Clinton appointee, also sealed her justification for keeping the documents secret in a single-page Dec. 20 order.
On Nov. 15, federal Magistrate Judge Stephanie Gallagher authorized the raid on Dennis Cain’s Union Bridge, Maryland, home. She sealed the government documents justifying it.
The Daily Caller News Foundation asked Gallagher on Nov. 29 to unseal the documents, noting that Cain’s attorney has said his client, a former employee of an FBI contractor, is a recognized whistleblower. The documents should be released in light of “an urgent public interest” surrounding the case, TheDCNF wrote.
Hillary Clinton? No. Nikolas Cruz? No. Clinton Foundation? No. Fusion GPS? No. Boston Bombers? No. San Bernardino terrorists? No. John Podesta? No. Susan Rice? No. Paul Zeidan? No.
Roger Stone? Yes. Michael Cohen? Yes. Paul Manafort? Yes.
Justice is no longer blind.
And leave it at that.
"Would"??? More like DOES.......everytime it makes a post here on the CF where it promised it would leave when Trump got elected. All lies.
Ask Nixon if this is true.
In general, if a Republican messes up (or is even accused of doing so) they are immediately abandoned by other republicans. OTOH democrats see it as a resume enhancement and (along with the press) continue to support dems no matter what they are proven to have done (even drown a woman).
Trump is the first big exception to this rule and dems, leftists of all stripes, and the press are apoplectic about it.
Hillary Clinton committed high crimes. End of story and I believe you know that. This was not speculation nor devoid of evidence to the contrary. The evidence was overwhelming to prosecute. If ever there was a time to raid "offices" with a regiment of FBI agents including her residence and all her cohorts without warning at the same exact time this was it. There is no comparison to the danger she placed this nation and its people in great danger. Two wrongs don't make a right? Where is the proof and evidence in the history of this nation that compares? You may be content with politicians and their children be protected from presecution and my children being thrown to the slaughter, but I am not. Everything about this government smells to the high heavens and the more crimes that are revealed in crumbs to the media, the more the vast majority of them are concealed.
Don't play the puppet Matt. You and I are getting bent over everyday. "Well just let it go now" is not good enough for me, until it also concerns me, which will never occur. Only the golden tower has that power.
For Sybil, that's a big yes....HELL YES!
Present your case, Rocco. The case that no criminal attorney has been able to present, yet. Otherwise, I'll lump you in the same category as JTV.
I’m no legal expert so maybe BK can weigh in but it’s my understanding that “criminal attorneys” don’t build cases or bring charges against anyone. In Hillary’s case that would take a federal prosecutor, in the proper jurisdiction.
Given how cavalierly Hillary disregarded the security of the information, using her own insecure private server, she should be prosecuted. Any normal stiff would be. But she likely won't. Trump was right in removing her security clearance. She should never be given another one.
"With the exception of President Trump, few inspire otherwise rational people to erupt into vicious debate quite like Hillary Clinton. It is this juxtaposed sentiment of admiration and vitriol that led to the three reasons the FBI’s investigation into the former secretary of State’s alleged use of a personal server was never going to result in charges.
First, the Democrats didn’t want her charged. The FBI should be, and is, apolitical. In fact, it would be bad form for a president to appoint a political ally to lead the FBI. However, this nonpartisan gesture is disingenuous given the appointment of the attorney general (AG) is not made with the same care. The FBI is the investigative arm of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the AG is the head of the DOJ. Thus, FBI investigations do not result in federal charges without the approval of the DOJ and, by extension, the AG.
That is why the June 2016 meeting between former President Clinton and former AG Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix was so significant. It was unconscionable that the AG would meet with the spouse of someone under federal investigation in such a manner. Though touted as an unexpected meeting, that is inconceivable. The two security details, Lynch’s and Clinton’s, would have learned during their security advance of the other being on the tarmac about the same time. This would result in prior notification to the protectee. Finally, assurances by the AG that their discussion was unrelated to the investigation is irrelevant."
The following are 11 federal laws that Hillary Clinton and her associates have been accused of violating, whether at The State Department or in connection with The Clinton Foundation:
U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States
U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
now if Barr has balls to do so, it is from these Clinton could be charged with... remember, some of her minions were given immunity by the Comey/Rice group and no one knows why, so they may get away with federal crimes ..... also remember Clinton was under subpoena to produce Emails, but she/her team destroyed them, thus destroying evidence, this is FACT .... so yes, she DID break laws, but only the AG can make the decision to prosecute.... I hope this new one does, if Barr has the the balls and believes in equal law for all, he should prosecute ....
June/2018 Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is getting another look with the release Thursday of a Justice Department inspector general report scrutinizing the FBI's investigation into whether she committed crimes using a private email server as secretary of state.
Although it would be controversial, the Justice Department is able to reopen the Clinton email case, and experts say President Trump's 2016 adversary arguably could be charged until March 2025 — after Trump would leave office even if he wins a second term.
Sloppy workers, leakers, whistleblowers, and spies face a variety of criminal charges for mishandling classified records. But there are leading options available to prosecutors, with varying statutes of limitations.
One law, 18 U.S. Code § 1924, forbids “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.” It carries up to five years in prison, with a five-year statute of limitations. Former CIA contractor Reynaldo Regis pleaded guilty in May to violating the law by taking home about 60 notebooks with classified information. There's no allegation he shared them.
Former CIA Director David Petraeus also pleaded guilty under this law in 2015 after sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer.
But prosecutors favor the more severe 18 U.S. Code § 793, which is part of the notoriously tough Espionage Act. The law restricts possession or retention of information “relating to the national defense" and carries a possible 10 years in prison, with a 10-year statute of limitations.
The tougher law is sometimes used even if there's no allegation information was deliberately shared. For example, former Navy sailor Kristian Saucier was indicted and pleaded guilty in 2016 under the law for taking six cellphone photos inside a nuclear submarine in 2009. The phone was discovered at a Connecticut dump in 2012.
The information in Saucier’s photos was deemed confidential, the lowest level of classification. Although some photos depicted the sub’s nuclear reactor, he argued they were innocent keepsakes to remember his employment. By contrast, at the time the FBI closed its investigation, it found 110 emails in 52 email chains on Clinton's server containing classified information. Eight emails chains contained top secret information, and 36 others had secret information.
Non-leak cases charged under the tougher law include Harold Martin III, the Maryland NSA contractor who agreed to plead guilty in January after improperly storing massive amounts of classified information at his home.
Because of the passage of time, it’s possible Clinton cannot be charged under the gentler statute. She left office in February 2013, and the law’s specific wording covers when someone "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain" them — written in such a way that the clock may begin when removal happens.
“I think that under this statute, the proscription is on the removal and it would run from removal,” prominent defense attorney Barry Pollack told the Washington Examiner.
But under the harsher law, the 10-year countdown arguably started in late March 2015, when tech aide Paul Combetta had what he told the FBI was an “oh shit” moment and deleted stored emails using the software BleachBit, after forgetting to do so months earlier.
Under the tougher law, "I would think its statute [of limitations] would not start to run as long as the person has the documents,” Pollack said. “It has a ten-year limitations period, not five.”
Pollack, who represents WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange and defended jailed journalistic source Jeffrey Sterling, said he believes that “it would be a stretch to claim that any of Hillary’s emails contained national defense information, but that term has been interpreted broadly.”
Under a broad reading of the law, Clinton can face prosecution until 2025, he said.
Jesselyn Radack, a prominent whistleblower defense attorney, agreed with Pollack’s reading of the laws.
“The Espionage Act’s statute of limitations should shortened, especially because it’s a strict liability law that does not consider the intent of the person charged,” said Radack, who has represented former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake, and former CIA operative John Kiriakou.
In 2016, FBI Director James Comey closed the bureau's investigation of Clinton's email server by concluding she was “extremely careless” in handling classified information, but that no prosecutor would charge her because they could not prove criminal intent. Comey’s decision to usurp traditional Justice Department processes to announce he would not seek charges is a likely subject of the new inspector general report. A memo written last year by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein blasted Comey's decision, and was cited by Trump in firing Comey.
People recently charged under the tough 18 U.S. Code § 793 include alleged journalistic sources Reality Winner, a former NSA contractor, and former FBI agent Terry Albury. Winner, arrested in June 2017, is jailed without bail pending trial for allegedly mailing The Intercept a document describing unsuccessful Russian attempts to hack election systems. Albury pleaded guilty in April and is believed to have sent The Intercept an FBI guide to informant recruitment and rules for seizing records from journalists.
Although he told Clinton during a 2016 debate that she would be in jail if he were elected president, Trump’s Justice Department does not appear to have taken action against her, frustrating Trump, who routinely mentions her case on Twitter.
“People like Hillary Clinton and General David Petraeus rarely get treated harshly, while low-level whistleblowers are prosecuted for espionage," Radack said, arguing that the Espionage Act ultimately should be repealed. "Obama started the trend but Trump has worsened it by putting alleged whistleblowers in jail."
David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton who represented her during the email probe, declined to comment.
It’s unclear who will suffer most from any fallout caused by the inspector general report. It's possible former investigators, led by Comey and his then-deputy Andrew McCabe, will suffer the worst backlash, rather than Clinton.
Comey’s personal handling of classified information, in memos he wrote after talks with President Trump and shared with a friend to be leaked, has received significant political attention recently. McCabe's alleged lies to FBI agents and Comey about his decision to authorize a leak was skewered in a separate Justice Department inspector general report this year, resulting in his firing."
Annony Mouse's Link