WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for help finding DNC staffer’s killer amid conspiracy rumors
150 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877333]It's the opposite at this point. All Clinton has to do is coast. Trump had that that luxury until he left the RNC with the only dip in Republican history and is currently shooting himself successfully in both feet. The general election is for swinging independents and I don't see this supposed dirt having more of an impact in September than it does now.[/QUOTE]
only time will tell.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877344]only time will tell.[/QUOTE]
What are you going to do if Clinton wins the election?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877343]WikiLeaks doesn't have dirt in this case, they have an incredibly shoddy narrative that counters the facts US authorities have.[/QUOTE]
The fbi rapport disagrees with you... i can keep this up all day man, if you are going to post bullshit like this
From the horses mouth;
"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."
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system[/url]
Hillaries words in front of the hearing that are considered purjury
"[I] did not email any classified material to anyone on my email"
"there is no classified material"
All of this was confirmed by the FBI to be either extremely careless, or with a deliberate intent to not be transparent about it. The rapport also states there is still a sizeable amount of emails that are missing from the record, although it is unclear just how big a portion is missing. While the FBI statement to the rapport said it does not advise to charge or further investigate her, it acknowledges wrongdoing and illegal acts.
[editline]13th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zyler;50877350]What are you going to do if Clinton wins the election?[/QUOTE]
hope bernie pushed her left enough so that she is no longer centre right in most of her views and hope her email scandal made her on her toes enough that she lays low during her presidency.
Hope she does not crack down on transparency, hope she does not crack down even more on whistleblowers, hope she actually does at least some of the things she promised to keep bernies following begrudgingly happy, hope she wont get elected twice in a row and hope the country i love wont rot any further from the inside out.
Id rather have trump win then clinton, but i could be proven dead wrong on that, i dont believe i can be proven wrong on the fact that clinton stinks of corruption... that ship has sailed and the only thing up for debate is just how dirty her hands really are to me.
I dont think she or her attaches assassinated anyone, but i could be wrong. I do believe its a worthwhile course of investigation. You dont rob someone by tapping them twice in the back of the head and not even touch the body to steal things. and as a police force you don't classify that as a suspected failed robbery.
Heck who knows russian spies did that to prevent him releasing the russian spin on the story... but you know what would protect us against that????
[B][U]transparent government...[/U][/B]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877373]The fbi rapport disagrees with you... i can keep this up all day man, if you are going to post bullshit like this
From the horses mouth;
"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."
[URL]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system[/URL]
Hillaries words in front of the hearing that are considered purjury
"[I] did not email any classified material to anyone on my email"
"there is no classified material"
All of this was confirmed by the FBI to be either extremely careless, or with a deliberate intent to not be transparent about it. The rapport also states there is still a sizeable amount of emails that are missing from the record, although it is unclear just how big a portion is missing. While the FBI statement to the rapport said it does not advise to charge or further investigate her, it acknowledges wrongdoing and illegal acts.[/QUOTE]
Let's read the whole thing, instead of taking only bits and pieces and removing them from any context.
[URL]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system[/URL]
[QUOTE]After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.
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.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]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. [B]The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.[/B]
[B]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.[/B][/QUOTE]
There had already been an investigation into whether she had transmitted classified information. That investigation proved that she did in fact transmit classified information. The FBI investigation was about whether or not she was guilty of [B]knowingly[/B] storing classified information on her personal computer system. The standard of guilt within the American Legal system requires that in order for an accused person to be guilty of a crime, they have to have [B]knowingly[/B] committed it. This is known as [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea"]mens rea[/URL] or 'guilty mind'.
We know that clinton had classified information on her email server, the investigation was about whether she did that knowingly.
[QUOTE]I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
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.
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”).
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.[/QUOTE]
The email server set up by the Clintons was actually really complicated and had years if not decades of unsorted emails on them. It's likely that either the FBI agents missed a few or that they had been deleted at some point without any malicious intent to hide them.
It's also worth noting that out of 30,000 emails, only 110 were considered to be classified material, which is a minuscule amount compared to the overall number of emails. It's possible that over the years, one or a two emails occasionally accidentally contained classified information, which points more to incompetence than outright maliciousness.
[QUOTE]With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”[/QUOTE]
Only three confidential emails were ever sent that were not directed to other state officials who had clearance to see those emails. 3 out of 300,000.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Again, confirming what I said earlier. The emails were likely deleted over time, not hidden to protect Clinton, no malicious intent required.
[QUOTE][B]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.[/B]
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. [B]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.[/B] 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).[/QUOTE]
So once again, all of this is pointing to incompetence not maliciousness, she did not knowingly leak these emails as Wikileaks did when they released them publicly for all the world to see. If she was working for the department of defense when this investigation happened then she would've lost her job, but aside from that she is not culpable for any crime because she did not knowingly commit anything wrong.
The report even states as such:
[QUOTE]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.
[B]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.[/B] Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, [B]especially regarding intent.[/B] Responsible decisions also consider [B]the context of a person’s actions[/B], 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. [B]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.[/B] 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. [B]But that is not what we are deciding now.[/B][/QUOTE]
So no, no criminal behavior or illegal behavior or wrongdoing is acknowledged here, aside from extreme carelessness, which is not a criminal act. There was no deliberate intent to not be transparent about it. The (small) amount of missing emails that are missing are probably missing because they were lost over time, not because there was any malicious intent to hide them.
You have completely misread and misinterpreted the report.
[editline]13th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877373]
hope bernie pushed her left enough so that she is no longer centre right in most of her views and hope her email scandal made her on her toes enough that she lays low during her presidency.
Hope she does not crack down on transparency, hope she does not crack down even more on whistleblowers, hope she actually does at least some of the things she promised to keep bernies following begrudgingly happy, hope she wont get elected twice in a row and hope the country i love wont rot any further from the inside out.
Id rather have trump win then clinton, but i could be proven dead wrong on that, i dont believe i can be proven wrong on the fact that clinton stinks of corruption... that ship has sailed and the only thing up for debate is just how dirty her hands really are to me.
I dont think she or her attaches assassinated anyone, but i could be wrong. I do believe its a worthwhile course of investigation. You dont rob someone by tapping them twice in the back of the head and not even touch the body to steal things. and as a police force you don't classify that as a suspected failed robbery.
Heck who knows russian spies did that to prevent him releasing the russian spin on the story... but you know what would protect us against that????
[B][U]transparent government...[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
If you think Clinton is corrupt, I hope you realize that Trump is actually a criminal who's been charged with fraud for his 'Trump University' scam among other things. Unlike the Clinton case, that actually has water and he is probably guilty of lying and defrauding thousands of people out of their money.
Everything you dislike Clinton for, whether it comes to a lack of transparency (he still won't release his financial records, likely because it would be used as evidence against him in his fraud case), criminal negligence and getting away with horrible things because of money and influence, is about 100 times worse when it comes to Trump.
[editline]13th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877373]
You dont rob someone by tapping them twice in the back of the head and not even touch the body to steal things. and as a police force you don't classify that as a suspected failed robbery.[/QUOTE]
He wasn't shot in the back of the head. He was shot in the back. Literally anything could have happened to lead to him being shot in the back by a mugger. He could've been trying to run away after the mugger told him to pass over the money and the mugger freaked out and shot him, that's just one example.
It's also possible the police know more than us, but they're not going to reveal the inner workings of an ongoing investigation so early on because they don't want people going all vigilante on someone if they get something wrong, so they're just giving us their currently most likely theory based on what they know at the moment.
This is how conspiracy theories start, when people misread things and then start using it to support their ideas.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877373]
Hope she does not crack down on transparency, hope she does not crack down even more on whistleblowers,
Id rather have trump win then clinton[/QUOTE]
Trump is against net neutrality, he plans to expand the NSA and implement a "Muslim watch list," has expressed interest in expanding libel laws to crack down on newspapers who are mean to him, fully supports the renewing the PATRIOT Act and expanding NSA surveillance programs, and implied that Snowden should be executed like "traitors" used to be.
Hillary has been consistently in favor of net neutrality, pushed for a "privacy bill of rights" in 2006, believes Snowden broke the law and should be tried, voted against expansion of the PATRIOT Act's wiretapping program, has called for greater transparency in the NSA, and has never banned media organizations she dislikes from her rallies.
If you're concerned about those issues, you need to read more on policy. Hillary's not phenomenal on privacy, but [i]holy fucking shit[/i] Trump is undeniably a thousand times worse. Hillary might not be out there constantly defending your civil liberties and your right to privacy at every turn, but Trump is actively campaigning on policies that [I]eliminate[/I] your right to privacy.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877373]The fbi rapport disagrees with you... i can keep this up all day man, if you are going to post bullshit like this [/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about her emails, I even said "in this case" meaning the thread topic. Maybe before leaping to calling my posts bullshit you should pick up on basic reading comprehension
[QUOTE=Zyler;50877438]There had already been an investigation into whether she had transmitted classified information. That investigation proved that she did in fact transmit classified information. The FBI investigation was about whether or not she was guilty of [B]knowingly[/B] storing classified information on her personal computer system. The standard of guilt within the American Legal system requires that in order for an accused person to be guilty of a crime, they have to have [B]knowingly[/B] committed it. This is known as [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea"]mens rea[/URL] or 'guilty mind'.[/QUOTE]
She literally sent an email telling someone to remove the classified header and send it through unsecure servers. She had full awareness and intent, but she's a rich and powerful person, so she will not be charged. And I don't buy the 'you have to know' bit at all, I seriously doubt if I get caught doing something wrong, that I can say "oh I didn't know" and be let off.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.