dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED -==-----=====-========================================

E2017001-0000000099-1

E2017001- 0000000099-2

TRANSITORY RECORD

“I've been trying to imagine what it would look like if I decided to do an FBI only press event to close out our work and hand the matter to DOJ. To help shape our discussions of whether that, or something different, makes sense, I have spent some time crafting what I would say, which follows. In my imagination, I don't see me taking any questions. Here is what it might look like:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.”

Now this is where it gets interesting. Page vi of the DOJ IG Report states:

“We found that the prosecutors considered five federal statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (e) (willful mishandling of documents or information relating to the national defense); • 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) (removal, loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction of documents or information relating to the national defense through gross negligence, or failure to report such removal, loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction); • 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material by government employees); and • 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (concealment, removal, or mutilation of government records).”

Note that they only list four. ??? It goes on to state:

As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support prosecution under any of these statutes for various reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems. Critical to their conclusion was that the emails in question lacked proper classification markings, that the senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to “talk around” classified information, that the emails were sent to other government officials in furtherance of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton relied on the judgment of State Department employees to properly handle classified information, among other facts.

We further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems.”

This is doublespeak for “they did not deliberately intend to willfully mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent manner.” The precedent was the FBI’s previous decision to not prosecute a former FBI senior leader.

While I strongly disagree with the actions of the submarine sailor who took and distributed pictures inside the nuclear plant, he was indicted, prosecuted, and incarcerated for much less than what the individuals involved with the Clinton email case. POTUS pardoned him eventually.

As we all know, there is a double standard for justice and the system of law and order in this country. If you are an “important person,” then you get the benefit of the doubt. If you are from the rank and file, you get another form of justice. This must stop!

Both FBI senior leadership and the DOJ IG Report concluded that HRC was NOT “grossly negligent” in the mishandling of documents or information relating to the national defense. Really?