Bryan H. Nishimura does exactly the same thing as Clinton ... guess what happens to him!

Exactly the same situation as Clinton's. I bet this guy is PISSED with Hillary getting off free and clear. I wonder what kind of POTUS could "never seek a U.S. security clearance again"?

From the FBI Website

Folsom Naval Reservist is Sentenced After Pleading Guilty to Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Materials U.S. Attorney’s Office July 29, 2015 Eastern District of California (916) 554-2700

SACRAMENTO, CA—Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.

According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.

Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case.

This content has been reproduced from its original source.

Comey proved, without a doubt, there is a separate set of rules for the political Elite like Clinton. One for them, which basically says "Do what you want, we'll cover your ass" and another for us that says "Go straight to jail".
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, I have no faith left in our government or justice system.

Any citizen who has any faith left in the system simply isn't paying attention to what said system is doing.

Having said that, we're all mad for letting it go on even one more day.

History repeating itself...

Corruption and the Decline of Rome

To Roman moralists the empire was always in decline, ever since some imagined state of republican virtus in the dim past. Small wonder that most modern historians have shunned as hopelessly misleading the whole vague notion of 'moral decline'. But MacMullen, looking steadily into this blind zone and assembling plenty of evidence, has traced a neglected but very influential process in the political and social changes that eventually permitted the dismemberment of the Western empire. This is an important book which will initiate a long debate.

His thesis is that a sea-change occurred in the dominant ethic of government and civil life. The earlier Principate operated not through impersonal administration, but rather through favour, patronage, recognised ties of family, kinship, class, city and guild membership, and so on. This network of mutual obligations was stable and pervasive enough to mesh with government in managing, more or less effectively, the huge empire: that is, providing for basic security, rule of law and the conditions of economic livelihood.

Bribery and abuses always occurred, of course. But by the fourth and fifth centuries they had become the norm: no longer abuses of a system, but an alternative system in itself. The cash nexus overrode all other ties. Everything was bought and sold: public office including army commands and bishoprics, judges' verdicts, tax assessments, access to authority on every level, and particularly the emperor. The traditional web of obligations became a marketplace of power, ruled only by naked self-interest.

But, but... There was no proof he "intended to distribute the information".

If we follow the precedent set in the Hilary case, something to the tune of: "we believe there was no intent to do harm, so that was taken into account." then he should be refunded his 7500$.

He didn't INTEND harm, so he shouldn't be in trouble!

originally posted by: DAVID64
Comey proved, without a doubt, there is a separate set of rules for the political Elite like Clinton. One for them, which basically says "Do what you want, we'll cover your ass" and another for us that says "Go straight to jail".
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, I have no faith left in our government or justice system.

Did you believe in the government before Comey's announcement?

Would that have changed if he had recommended indictment?

If so, does that strike you in any way as a bit ... dissonant?

I thought america had a (hidously outdated) bill of rights to protect you from people like Hilary?

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

So, the Reservist intentionally kept sensitive materials after the duration of time he was authorized to hold them?

Was there any part of his job that required him to keep materials in his home? Was any of his chain-of-command knowledgeable that he was copying those materials (not, for example, receiving two-way communications in authorized emails) for his own apparent use? Did they directly or tacitly approve? Were the materials Reservist Nishimura dealing with clearly marked with the required classified notations? Do you think it important at all the the Reservist would have come under the jurisdiction of military as well as civilian law?

Hmmm. Doesn't sound very similar to Secretary Clinton's situation at all, just on the surface.

originally posted by: lordcomac
Any citizen who has any faith left in the system simply isn't paying attention to what said system is doing.

Having said that, we're all mad for letting it go on even one more day.

And yet we watch what happens in Dallas and say "Oh how awful what that no good 'terrorist' did to those poor government officers!"

Complacent and harmless sheep the vast majority of us.

Bitch online is the most anyone will ever dare do about it.

And then wonder why it goes unchecked and gets worse lol.

I've not said much about the dallas event other than insinuating... nah, probably outright saying it was an inside job.


But I'm with you- the tyrants rule the roaming death squads driving by our homes right now. Who would dare confront them?

Even if someone did, would their message really be heard, or would it be replaced by the current agenda official narrative?

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

yeah but Hill's was just careless and didn't mean to do anything untoward, the FBI cannot prove with unreasonable doubt that Hillary intentionally and knowingly broke protocol with the intention of using the information for nefarious purposes.

The rest of the planet (minus the Ellen, Oprah and Kardashian crowd) knows she's a lying deceitful cow and that there is a likely 99.99'% chance she knew EXACTLY what she was doing, every step of the way.

Hillary herself proved this yesterday by publicly announcing that Comeys insinuation that she was careless was unacceptable to her therefore she is maintaining zero #'s given.

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

Yes, maybe, exactly the same crime, but the FBI director was probably to think beyond the crime to what would be better for the country. Of course, those urging him to think of "what's good for the country" just happen to be all Dems.


Anyway, if you didn't once accept that politics was dirty and crooked, you should not take it all in with a clear vision and think about alternatives.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you believe in the government before Comey's announcement?

No. If you'll check my post history, I've been saying that for quite a while now.
No. My distrust goes far deeper than one case.
No.

I am still of the opinion that Comey knew what he was doing here, and his intention was not to let Clinton skate.

I think he knew that if he passed this case to prosecutors, they would make some kind of statement that she was "innocent" or that they could find "no reason to charge" or some-such, then the whole thing would have been pushed under the rug and made to disappear. There might have been FOIA requests, but those could have dragged out past the election. If Comey recommended charges, he could never have made the condemnations at a public press release, because that would have been considered compromising the case. And he likely could not have commented after a prosecutor statement of innocence, as they are his bosses.

He even made it clear that anyone who did what she did would likely face other sanctions, and now the State Department can reopen the investigation.

He carefully worded that press release to expose her lies. He practically came right out and said that she was incompetent. He happily went before the FBI, and he continued there to expose her lies and criticize her actions. And he even let it "slip" that they are investigating the Clinton Foundation, which is surely the bigger issue.

I think he knows she was guilty, but took a chance to expose as much as he could before the election, to give Congress and the State Department a chance to do what they can.

Putting it all together, I have trouble considering that Comey was involved in some kind of coverup. If he had been, he never would have said what he did. Clinton is certainly not happy with him.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Putting it all together, I have trouble considering that Comey was involved in some kind of coverup. If he had been, he never would have said what he did. Clinton is certainly not happy with him.

The marching analogy is quite brilliant, once marching one can only keep moving one foot in front of the other in an ever ending cycle of left/right left/right.......

This is nothing like Clinton's case at all. This would be like if Clinton took a bunch of cleanly marked classified materials after she left office and carried them around eventually storing them in her home. Then up and admitted it. Then only payed a fine.

Clintons best comparison would be Attorney General Gonzales who took home and stored Top Secret note on Bosh's warrantless wire tapping program. Keeping unauthorized documents at home while on the job in secure location not approved. They declined to prosecute him.

Lets put this in perspective, in the last 5 years the DoJ received 30 referrals for mishandling classified information. 80% of the time they declined to prosecute. The six times they did were cases of where people pled guilty.

So lets stop pretending that Clinton is some how unique in this case.

a reply to: MrSpad

Clinton's intentions are what is damning about this. Only the most naive would accept the "convenience" excuse. I think that more will come out about this with the Clinton Foundation FBI investigation.

It seems as if her reasons for keeping her emails private were to avoid FOIA requests, and to hide the connection to the Clinton Foundation.

Comey said there is no way to know what was in those 30,000 emails that were destroyed. Why would she totally destroy them, if they were only personal emails? Why not preserve them, just in case they found work emails missing that they might need to find in those pulled?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: MrSpad

Clinton's intentions are what is damning about this. Only the most naive would accept the "convenience" excuse. I think that more will come out about this with the Clinton Foundation FBI investigation.

It seems as if her reasons for keeping her emails private were to avoid FOIA requests, and to hide the connection to the Clinton Foundation.

Comey said there is no way to know what was in those 30,000 emails that were destroyed. Why would she totally destroy them, if they were only personal emails? Why not preserve them, just in case they found work emails missing that they might need to find in those pulled?

All you need to do to avoid a FOIA request is stamp confidential on it. And they were nor private from her staff or most of State from who and to they were sent. And why would she destroy them? Because everybody does. Who keeps emails? As Comey said they were deleted from time to time like staff in any office does. He did not find it odd at all.