Posted on 05/12/2018 6:32:39 AM PDT by LS
https://twitter.com/DropTha_Mic25/status/949690887520641024
Despite knowing protocol, Monica Hanley often dismissed securing & protecting natl sec & was reprimanded on several occasions. (see docs)
Hanley transferred all Sec Clintons emails 2 unsecure laptop. AT HER HOUSE. Still had this laptop at house even AFTER not working 4 Clinton anymore. Ready for this?
"Hanley created an archive of hdr22@clintonmail.com then Huma selected a name of hdr17@climtonemail.com
The computer was shipped to Paul Combetta: "A laptop w/ all 4yrs of Secretary Clintons emails was LOST IN THE MAIL. And FBI didn't bother tracking it? Has no idea where it is. BUT says they don't think anyone gained access to her emails?"
"Not only THAT... Monica, not working for Clinton anymore at time of FBI investigation, still had in her possession an IPAD that belonged to Secretary Clinton"
Lola then asks (re: Combover's testimony that they determined it was Russia that hacked, but never had access or control of the computers!): "We can only make evaluations on what we're able to gather" WTF DID U GATHER FROM DNC? NOTHING. If u can determine Russia gained access W/OUT evaluating DNC server, HOW? Why didn't u hire Crowdstrike for Clinton server?
Just when you think things can’t get worse.
Mr. Attorney General: Please arrest this woman. Now.
Enough people to mass up for a citizen’s arrest of her and the rest?
If the AG can’t be bothered.......
Wasn’t Lola one of Bill’s girlfriends? Or was that the Lolita?
If any of us did something that stupid at our jobs with work-related documents WE would be fired, and maybe in jail if we handled top-secret documents. Just sayin’ ...
Lost in the mail? Didn’t put everything on a thumb drive? Who are we kidding?
From CNBC.com, July 7, 2016...
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ..."
Heres a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: Thats what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, Im looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: Thats not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material. That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: Thats a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, theres no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, Im not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right[]
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. Youre right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didnt say that in 08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you dont know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if youre Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned theres no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isnt. Theres nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.
But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
Backup link:
____________________________________
If any of us did something that stupid...
Enough people to mass up for a citizens arrest of her and the rest?
What IS the mechanism for us to force this, since our U.S. Reps are NOT representing us? Class-action lawsuits? All of us calling the police in their county to report the crimes? Recalling our Reps? Work stoppages? Ten Million Man Pitchfork March on the DOJ? What?
Our governments are a joke now, saturated with corrupt, greedy, unaccountable conmen. Tagline.
Disjointed words and poor phrasing ,but that’s typical of Twitter. More evidence of inept/incompetent /deliberately bad “investigation” by Mueller’s tag team of NSA-FBI-DNC-CIA insiders? Doesn’t fit well with a theory that Mueller is really investigating DNC-Hillary unless this is a leak of that info.
Monica did a “Hillary Clinton”. LOL
My dog at my emails. Really, he did.
Don’t worry.
Goober, er, Sessions is ALL OVER THIS!!!
He’s playing 94D chess. Black ops! Double triple whammy fake out!!
Or something.
ROFLMAO!!
LOL!!
Oh, wait, you’re serious.
Andy Griffith marathon on this weekend. Maybe Monday he’ll get to it.
But I’d bet EVERYTHING against that.
There is no doubt you’d be in jail.
“Wasnt Lola one of Bills girlfriends? Or was that the Lolita?”
Statistically, it is likely that both names make the list.
Maybe this:
Mandamus Overview
A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. (See, e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court For D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004) 334 F.3d 1096.) According to the U.S. Attorney Office, "Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance."
Mandamus at the Federal Level
In the federal courts, these orders most frequently appear when a party to a suit wants to appeal a judge's decision but is blocked by rules against interlocutory appeals. Instead of appealing directly, the party simply sues the judge, seeking a mandamus compelling the judge to correct his earlier mistake. Generally, this type of indirect appeal is only available if the party has no alternative means of seeking review.
The All Writs Act gave the "Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress" the authority to issue writs of mandamus "in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
Further, 28 U.S. Code § 1361 gave federal district courts "original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."
Sadly you are right.
Didn’t Bill drink champagne with Lola and it tasted just like cherry cola...C-O-L-A.
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.