FBI Director: Petraeus Leaks Were Much Worse Than Clinton Email Mess

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I accept his conclusion. It just happens to be wrong to me.
Maybe it is because I don't fully understand the law like you say.

Is it true that gross negligence leading to classified information getting out is defined as a crime in that law?
If so, then I understand it well enough to decide that what Clinton did was as bad, if not worse than Petraeus.
The so called compelling evidence is all over the place. Her negligent decisions likely led to leaks.
He said it was possible that she was hacked, but they would be "unlikely to see such evidence" and said that people she was in contact with DID get hacked.
To me shows an even greater possibility that her server was compromised, thus, compromising classified info through gross negligence.
Now, if the law states that gross negligence in certain cases could be criminal, even with out intent, I fully concede.
I don't think that's the case though.
It's not like I want her locked up in prison or anything, she just shouldn't be president if she can't even understand that having classified information open and accessible to foreign and domestic hackers, along with other countries.

Well, if he got a misdemeanor for what is seen as a worse violation that Mrs. Clinton's then the charge of High Crime makes sense as his charge set a precedence... he will-fully violated and leaked information. So charging her with a lesser is the going rate in the fairness of the High Crime law.

Now if the hung him by his boot straps instead? Her charge wouldn't have been so light, however double jeopardy states he cant be re-tried so if she were to be charged with more then it would be basically one of those make an example out of her which means... taken with prejudice.

So of course the take away is to see how all of these such leaks occur and secure them... so it becomes a lesson on both sides of prosecution and defence.

Even though there were many hijackings in the 70's no one took any precautions that would secure against them, so we had a 9/11 that could have been prevented.

So hey maybe it's a catch 22 in both cases but... maybe it's a lesson in transparency and that some things should be shared between countries in order to aid each other of course those likely to press a button or keep their people under tyranny likely wont be involved and well thats likely where we stand on such things world wide anyway... or at least have been moving or transitioning too in unity attempting it via trade.

Closing borders, building walls, and ceasing trade? That's global cold war and a yuuge step backwards in a large goose step forward that we've already been through... no one in their right mind could want such a thing.

Lets not be one of those cant learn from the past so lets be stupid enough to repeat it countries.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Your argument does not stand-up because you are making a definitive statement about her intent. The FBI couldn't even make a concrete determination about her intent, yet you are just making it up without evidence.

That is why your conclusion does not match the FBI's.

The FBI deals with facts and evidence. You deal with make believe and personal agendas.

No evidence? lol okay. newsflash: Everyone can plainly see you are only putting lipstick on a pig every time you defend Hillary, and your use of words is comical to boot.
Don't try again, it makes you look ridiculous, or go ahead again, it's funny watching a Hillary drone buzz about.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

Not qualified? Are you insane? She's even more qualified than Obama when he got elected.
Let's not even go there. Her resume speaks for itself.
Oh and while she was doing those jobs listed on her resume people thought she was doing quite well. Outstanding actually.
You can't rewrite history .

Her resume looks like a partial roll of used toilet paper as far as looking at the lackluster quantity of flip flopping failed ideas, but nobody ever helped her pass any legislation, or anything else of substance. Everything she has done looks like that strip of used toilet paper. You can call that her resume if it makes you feel bubbly and warm inside though.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No evidence? lol okay. newsflash: Everyone can plainly see you are only putting lipstick on a pig every time you defend Hillary, and your use of words is comical to boot.
Don't try again, it makes you look ridiculous, or go ahead again, it's funny watching a Hillary drone buzz about.

Nice personal attack. Can you refute what I said with a reasonable, logic statement, or is this really the best you can do?

Lashing out with emotions does not make a good argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Keep in mind that Petraeus only got a misdemeanor charge for this, AND Comey still thinks he should have been prosecuted. So to people still holding out that Hillary was guilty here, this is the FBI director not only saying you are wrong but giving an example of a WORSE situation where someone got off with a slap on the wrist. In other words, if you want to indict Hillary no matter what still, you best be yelling for Petraeus' head too.

She's running for the highest office in our land.

She needs to step down and allow someone else in the Democratic party, that has ethics to run in her place.

Pointing the finger at someone else doesn't diminish what Hillary Clinton did.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No evidence? lol okay. newsflash: Everyone can plainly see you are only putting lipstick on a pig every time you defend Hillary, and your use of words is comical to boot.
Don't try again, it makes you look ridiculous, or go ahead again, it's funny watching a Hillary drone buzz about.

Nice personal attack. Can you refute what I said with a reasonable, logic statement, or is this really the best you can do?

Lashing out with emotions does not make a good argument.

Watch the video above this post of the proven Hillary lies to the American people. That is absolutely irrefutable evidence/AKA PROOF that when you keep on defending her lies, it makes you also a liar and A propagator of liars. How does that make you feel? You are also freely exposing your own lack of morals/ethics when you do that.

You LOSE.

Moving along now. You do the same.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No evidence? lol okay. newsflash: Everyone can plainly see you are only putting lipstick on a pig every time you defend Hillary, and your use of words is comical to boot.
Don't try again, it makes you look ridiculous, or go ahead again, it's funny watching a Hillary drone buzz about.

Nice personal attack. Can you refute what I said with a reasonable, logic statement, or is this really the best you can do?

Lashing out with emotions does not make a good argument.

Watch the video above this post of the proven Hillary lies to the American people. That is absolutely irrefutable evidence/AKA PROOF that when you keep on defending her lies, it makes you also a liar and A propagator of liars. How does that make you feel? You are also freely exposing your own lack of morals/ethics when you do that.

You LOSE.

Moving along now. You do the same.

Yes, she lied. What does that have to do with your inability to prove her intent in regards to specific actions she took? Specifically, your claim about the server.

The FBI couldn't prove it. You think some youtube video does?

Please. You're just insulting the intelligence of those that can look past the politics to think logically.

So for you to lash-out again emotionally and claim some sort of victory is laughable.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No evidence? lol okay. newsflash: Everyone can plainly see you are only putting lipstick on a pig every time you defend Hillary, and your use of words is comical to boot.
Don't try again, it makes you look ridiculous, or go ahead again, it's funny watching a Hillary drone buzz about.

Nice personal attack. Can you refute what I said with a reasonable, logic statement, or is this really the best you can do?

Lashing out with emotions does not make a good argument.

Watch the video above this post of the proven Hillary lies to the American people. That is absolutely irrefutable evidence/AKA PROOF that when you keep on defending her lies, it makes you also a liar and A propagator of liars. How does that make you feel? You are also freely exposing your own lack of morals/ethics when you do that.

You LOSE.

Moving along now. You do the same.

Yes, she lied. What does that have to do with your inability to prove her intent in regards to specific actions she took? Specifically, your claim about the server.

The FBI couldn't prove it. You think some youtube video does?

Please. You're just insulting the intelligence of those that can look past the politics to think logically.

So for you to lash-out again emotionally and claim some sort of victory is laughable.

Yeah, pathological lying has nothing to do with intent huh? Now I thought I had seen mentally unable to think logically before today, but you just blew them all away in the Jerry Lewis sweepstakes. Just don't even bother trying, okay? thanks

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It's all about what you can prove. You should know that. Youtube videos and partisan lunacy does not convict, or even indict, people.

Just don't even bother trying, okay? thanks

It would be admirable if you would try just a little bit.

Just a little.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
FBI Director: Petraeus Leaks Were Much Worse Than Clinton Email Mess

So yesterday, the FBI director testified in front of the Republican Congress about why he didn't recommend an indictment for Hillary. Well during this testimony he compared Hillary's transgressions to Gen Petraeus' leaks and said that Petraeus was FAR worse than Hillary.

The two cases are nothing alike, Comey testified Thursday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Clinton used a private email server for some of her official business as secretary of state, which may have compromised sensitive information. By contrast, Petraeus, who resigned in disgrace from the CIA in 2012, knowingly shared classified information ― war strategies, intelligence capabilities, conversations with President Barack Obama ― with Paula Broadwell, his lover and biographer.

“The Petraeus case, to my mind, illustrates perfectly the kind of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute,” Comey said.

Petraeus initially lied to the FBI about his violations, but then confessed to them as part of a plea agreement. The Justice Department ultimately charged him with a misdemeanor violation, despite the FBI recommending he be prosecuted.

“In that case, you had vast quantities of highly classified information … not only shared with someone without authority to have it, but we found it in a search warrant, hidden under the insulation in his attic, and then he lied to us about it during the investigation,” Comey said. “So you have obstruction of justice. You have intentional misconduct. And a vast quantity of classified information. He admitted it was the wrong thing to do.”

Comey later said he misspoke, and that investigators found classified materials in Petraeus’ desk, not in the attic insulation. (So what was in the attic?)

Keep in mind that Petraeus only got a misdemeanor charge for this, AND Comey still thinks he should have been prosecuted. So to people still holding out that Hillary was guilty here, this is the FBI director not only saying you are wrong but giving an example of a WORSE situation where someone got off with a slap on the wrist. In other words, if you want to indict Hillary no matter what still, you best be yelling for Petraeus' head too.

I, unlike some people who dislike Hillary, thought that Director Comey was quite honest with his testimony. That being said, he was investigating CRIMINAL activity. He found no evidence that she was committing crimes against the law.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that she violated statutes in regards to handling classified information (no, I'm not going to link it because it was plain and clear in Comey's testimony.) In which "extreme carelessness" is in direct translation with "gross negligence." In which, by punishment of the Government, she should be stripped of her security clearances, and never to be held again, which would disqualify her to be POTUS.

In the very least she set up and insecure server, albeit knowingly, bypassing State Department guidelines. IF there was any hack into that system, or any connected system/device (it's fairly easy to go from one to the next if they're connected, ie; Home Depot hack), it is also under the statutes. Let me reiterate..

18 U.S.C. Section 793(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .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.

Read the bold. Emphasis added by me. Key points in that is "stolen," and "destroyed." It's well known that she deleted emails -- in modern time that is considered "destroyed," as well as hack considered "stolen."

I'm not looking for a heated debate on this topic, but the facts are clear and present. I'm perfectly fine with dropping this whole "criminal" investigation. There are far better (worse for her sake) things that could happen than her going to prison. Stripping of security clearance and ability to obtain them again is more than enough.


Straight from Comey's press conference:

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

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.

m.fbi.gov...://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary -clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system (excuse the mobile link, because well..mobile)

P.s. I'm not a Trump supporter, nor republican. So keep your Trump bashing/right winger comments to yourself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hold on a second, are you suggesting that you trust anything that a member of the FBI says?

That is outrageous.

Considering the FBI constantly creates it's own "perps" to parade around as a foiled terror plot on a very regular basis, I do not think that giving any credibility to a single word one of these FBI liars says is an intelligent plan.

Fox guarding the hen house here.

Petraeus gave information to 1 person. Easy prosecution.

Hillary Clinton is very recently proud to point out that she emailed over 300 people at the State Department in her four years as SoS. That is because she knows as well as anybody else that every single person who emailed classified information to her has to be prosecuted the same as her if they try to bust her for the classified emails. She has her magic get out of jail card so to speak...or Ace in the hole. It would be a legal nightmare.

Let's see how the State Department security review goes and the senate request that the FBI investigate her for perjury... that way it is just her all by her little lonesome. Then you still have pending numerous civil lawsuits as well including the Judicial Watch one.

It ain't over till its over and it ain't over yet. Plenty of options are still on the table. She is unfit to be the president, and she is 100% unfit to possess a security clearance at all. period.

EDIT: The State Department is going to have a very very tough time explaining why Hillary Clinton and any others involved still have active clearance. All of the clearances of those involved should be immediately revoked pending investigation. For most that are still government workers... they would mostly like lose their jobs.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

With those standards the only people qualified to be president are Eagle Scouts.
Who in Washington qualifies then?

BINGO!

I can't believe no one is asking why the Benghazi sessions & investigations were allowed to last so long and take up so many resources. Less time was spent on 9/11, Pearl Harbour, etc

I'm not really a fan of Hillary, but anytime a single politician is getting #### on, while others skate by, something's fishy. Bush lied about a war, literally, his administration LIED, undisputed. And he got a second term.

I think everyone is aware they can't bring down Hillary. I think it's because she has too much political clout, she probably has dirt on all of Washington. They can't bring her down, so they traipse her around the mud for months on end.

Who though? Who benefits? It might appear like a tired theme but the Zionists seem to have a connection.. It's confusing researching on it, because you will find numerous sites claiming "Shillary" is working for Israel, but the reality is in the Obama administration, she has done a lot against the wishes of the Zionist lobby. Plenty of pro-Zionist publications are warning their readership from voting for for.

To me that says something. It's also interesting to note, Mossad has links to numerous events in the US, (Dancing Israeli's etc) and when these are investigated, they are whitewashed hatchet jobs. Yet, Benghazi suddenly deserves more attention? Mossad is linked to Benghazi as well, and like plenty of other operations, Mossad is linked and conclusively shown to be perpetrating false flags in Libya, US & UK, for moving policy in Libya. They have an agenda for the ME. That's clear. What happens when someone gets in the way of it, is that why we are seeing such a big deal made about Benghazi?

In a room full of liars, if you remove one and convince yourself the problem is solved, you are still in a room full of liars, but a worse position overall.

Hillary might be a criminal, or a liar or whatever, but so is everyone else in Washington. Trump is too. He's a 1%er who thinks of himself first. They both are. Trump made a fortune selling a pyramid scam, ACN, to school kids. Getting them to buy outrageously priced licenses. A business model that's barely legal.

I did a a thread on his friend and I think business associate, who was scamming money in "teaching" programs that wee basically designed to teach people how to leverage 20-100k in credit card limits or bank loan limits in a day. They'd give people forms or scripts to read from. Once people had their limtis jacked, they'd then try to sell them "educational" products in the tune of $20,000 a piece. Some people would blow 50k+ at the promise of getting rich.

Im not sure if Trump was part of that, but he's been involved other shady stuff. I did a thread on him awhile ago but its mysteriously disappeared. He was caught lying about his wealth, took the guy to court and the judge ruled against him.

In any case, it's all bla bla nonsense. What's important to me is how badly are people being manipulated. It's obvious the establishment has found a place for Trump, negotiated or worked out some kind of deal. Benghazi has been a highlight for way too long. There were much more pressing incidents which received less attention.

It's a fixed system, a rigged game. Anytime people think they are "standing up for whats right" or some other BS they are likely being played like a fiddle. That's where their real outrage should be directed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

No it doesn't depend on anything really. These were Comey's words, not some random jackass off of the streets. This is the guy in charge of the investigation. If you are going to argue with him then you are just arguing with reality.

Comey later said he misspoke, and that investigators found classified materials in Petraeus’ desk, not in the attic insulation.

To go before a Congressional Committee and speak with such blinding glare as to the difference between finding files in a desk and the discovery of files within the insulation of an attic and later claim to reporters to have "misspoke[n]", as if it were a simple matter of pronunciation, seems like something a random jackass off the streets would do.

So much for reality.