Skip to comments.
IG Report: Footnote #124, Page 164 – Clinton Email Investigation: “The Fix Was In”…
CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE ^
| 6/25/2018
| SUNDANCE
Posted on 06/25/2018 9:00:35 PM PDT by bitt
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
1
posted on
06/25/2018 9:00:35 PM PDT
by
bitt
To: Whenifhow; null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; 2ndDivisionVet; azishot; ...
2
posted on
06/25/2018 9:00:53 PM PDT
by
bitt
(t\\)
To: bitt
3
posted on
06/25/2018 9:01:41 PM PDT
by
fortheDeclaration
(Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
To: bitt
“Page #164, footnote #124”
Ok.
Post it.
4
posted on
06/25/2018 9:16:17 PM PDT
by
ifinnegan
(Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
To: bitt
Paging Capt. Renault, paging Capt. Renault...
5
posted on
06/25/2018 9:21:21 PM PDT
by
skr
(May God confound the enemy)
To: bitt
This appears to be the full paragraph partially quoted in the article: "As early as September 2015, FBI and Department officials realized that they were unlikely to find evidence of intent. Prosecutor 2 stated that within a month of first obtaining criminal process, they had seen no evidence of intent. This prosecutor told the OIG that the team realized that the case likely would lead to a declination after they had reviewed the classified information in former Secretary Clintons emails and heard the explanations for including that information in unclassified emails. Prosecutor 2 said that there were a number of other investigative steps they needed to take to complete their due diligence, but that by September 2015 they knew that they would need a game changer to be able to prove intent. " (p. 165) Footnote 124 appears on the prior page and discusses how the prosecutors had decided they would not recommend prosecution unless they could prove intent.
6
posted on
06/25/2018 9:21:58 PM PDT
by
Fedora
To: Fedora
The farkin private server setup WAS the intent
7
posted on
06/25/2018 9:25:16 PM PDT
by
digger48
To: Fedora
They decided early on that claiming “lack of intent” was the only way they cojuld cover up Hillary’s crimes.
8
posted on
06/25/2018 9:26:22 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: Fedora
Bleach bit after the subpoena of the emails proves intent
9
posted on
06/25/2018 9:29:26 PM PDT
by
sdthree
To: Fedora
Footnote 124: "The legal framework for the Midyear investigation and the basis for the decision not to recommend or pursue prosecution of former Secretary Clinton or her staff are described in Chapters Two and Seven, respectively. Even though Section 793(f)(1) does not require intent, prosecutors told us that the Department has interpreted the provision to require that the person accused of having removed or delivered classified information in violation of this provision possess knowledge that the information is classified. In addition, based on the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), the prosecutors determined that conduct must be so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention, be criminally reckless, or fall just a little short of willful to meet the gross negligence standard."
10
posted on
06/25/2018 9:30:22 PM PDT
by
Fedora
To: ifinnegan
124
The legal framework for the Midyear investigation and the basis for the decision not to recommend or pursue prosecution of former Secretary Clinton or her staff are described in Chapters Two and Seven, respectively. Even though Section 793(f)(1) does not require intent, prosecutors told us that the Department has interpreted the provision to require that the person accused of having removed or delivered classified information in violation of this provision possess knowledge that the information is classified. In addition, based on the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), the prosecutors determined that conduct must be so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention, be criminally reckless, or fall just a little short of willful to meet the gross negligence standard.
To: BenLurkin
The charges of mishandling classified info, destroying evidence after receiving a subpeona, and falsifying information against a presidential candidate should not be mitigated by lack of intent. How do you smash phone if you have no intent to destroying evidence?
When Comey exhonerated hillary all by himself, commentators said that “excessive handling” of classified info was indictable intent or no.
To: morphing libertarian
13
posted on
06/25/2018 9:38:10 PM PDT
by
hal ogen
(First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
To: hal ogen
It is so obvious it is the most frustrating thing since the Warren report, probably worse..
To: Robert DeLong
And yet, despite displayed political bias by half the staff members conducting the mid-year investigation, the IG determined that the prosecutorial decisions made by the DOJ prosecutors never were shown to be outside of appropriate parameters and therefore unaffected by bias in evidence.
The Prosecutors never had the FBI referrals of crimes because the parameters outlined in this footnote made “crime” an virtually unreachable standard.
I didn’t see anything. Did you see anything, Loretta?
No, James, I didn’t see anything in this matter.
Okay, I’ll close it.
15
posted on
06/25/2018 9:40:56 PM PDT
by
KC Burke
(If all the world is a stage, I would like to request my lighting be adjusted.)
To: digger48
16
posted on
06/25/2018 9:43:44 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(Why the hell isn't Hillary Rodham Clinton in prison yet?)
To: bitt
It wasn’t her lack of intent. It was that fact that she didn’t give a shyt.
17
posted on
06/25/2018 9:48:42 PM PDT
by
Seruzawa
(TANSTAAFL!)
To: doug from upland
.
It didnt affect anything, though.
Toothless IG.
Swamp protecting the Swamp.
.
To: sdthree
can you pass me a hammer please?
its a sure way to munch a hard drive or a phone!
19
posted on
06/25/2018 9:49:35 PM PDT
by
himno hero
(hadnuff)
To: bitt
The IG put his statement that Hillary violated the espionage act in a footnote where he hoped no one would read it?
That conclusion should have had its own section in the report.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson