It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OIG Report Released: Full text

page: 23
32
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL

Of Course they pretended to find "Nutink".

That was the strategy from Day1

But Comey put it in the original statement anyway 😃

😎🚬🔫
edit on Jun-17-2018 by xuenchen because: 🏺




posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
By the way, I haven't heard anyone clammoring for Gonzales indictment, yet ... you know the one referenced above???



In sum, our investigation concluded that Gonzales mishandled classified materials regarding two highly sensitive compartmented programs. We found that Gonzales took his classified handwritten notes home and stored them there for an indeterminate period of time. The notes contained operational aspects and other information about the NSA surveillance program that is classified at the TS/SCI level. By regulation, such material must be stored in a Sensitive Compartmented Storage Facility (SCIF).


At the time he took these materials home, Gonzales did not have a SCIF at his house. Although Gonzales did have a safe at his residence at this time, we found that he did not use it to store the notes. We also found that Gonzales improperly stored other highly classified documents about the two compartmented programs in a safe at the Department that was not located in a SCIF. Several employees in the OAG had access to the safe where Gonzales stored the documents even though they lacked the necessary security clearances for this information.

We concluded that Gonzales’s mishandling of both the notes and the other classified documents violated Department security requirements and procedures.


Hmmm sounds familiar doesn't it? What happened?



The Federal Criminal Code contains statutes relating to the improper handling of classified documents.32 In light of Gonzales’s handling of these documents, and in particular the handwritten notes which we found he improperly brought to his residence, we provided our report to the Department’s National Security Division for its review. After reviewing the matter, the National Security Division declined prosecution. We have also provided our report to the Department’s Security and Emergency Planning Staff and to the NSA for their review and any actions related to our findings that these entities consider appropriate.


OIG - Report of Investigation Regarding Allegations of Mishandling of
Classified Documents by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL

Of Course they pretended to find "Nutink".

That was the strategy from Day1

But Comey put it in the original statement anyway 😃

😎🚬🔫


Which if I remember correctly was one of the reasons Comey was criticized in this OIG report, correct?

Also from the IG report under discussion, linked above:




pg 33

The OIG referred investigative findings to NSD for a prosecutive decision. According to information reviewed by the OIG, on August 19, 2008, NSD analyzed Gonzales’ handling of the notes under the gross negligence provision in section 793(f)(1). NSD concluded that prosecutors likely could show that the documents were removed from their proper place of custody, but that the question was whether that removal constituted “gross negligence.”

After discussing the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), NSD stated that the government likely would have to prove that Gonzales’ conduct was “criminally reckless” to establish that he acted with gross negligence under Section 793(f)(1). NSD concluded that Gonzales’ inability to recall precisely where he stored the notes detracted from prosecutors’ ability to “show a state of mind approaching ‘deliberate intention’ to remove classified documents from a secure location.”


You don't think there's a difference in political ideology or party here ... do ya?

edit on 17-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They DID find that she was guilty of "gross negligence". That's the point. If they would have left that terminology, then the statutes quoted would have applied to her.

They decided to soften that word specifically because they knew that she would need to be charged if they used the terminology.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

They DID find that she was guilty of "gross negligence". That's the point. If they would have left that terminology, then the statutes quoted would have applied to her.

They decided to soften that word specifically because they knew that she would need to be charged if they used the terminology.



No, they (the investigators and prosecutors) DID NOT find Clinton culpable (or prosecutable) of gross negligence under the law. Just as the Bush DOJ did not find Alberto Gonzales culpable or prosecutable.

I've linked that evidence directly from the IG report several times. As I said, Comey was CRITICIZED for using that language in his public statement PRECISELY BECAUSE there was no finding of fact.
edit on 17-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is not similar.

Handwritten notes taken home once are not even close to as vulnerable as a server connected to the Internet.

Clinton did not just take something home. She willfully over a long period of time carelessly stored and shared classified material. Her emails were found on many different servers, computers, laptops, phones, and even thumb drives. She did not even have a record of everyplace her files were stored, and none of them were safe by State Department standards.

She also allowed people without security clearance to access the files, including Weiner and others.

Her reasons for doing so were not just to read some notes later at home. She willfully was avoiding FOIA, etc.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

In the original draft, they certainly DID find her grossly negligent:

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BlueAjah

Here's another attempt to "de-heat" Hillary Clinton....


IG Report page 191 (pdf p.220)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

As linked above, the OIG disagrees with that summation.

Gonzales took highly classified material home, and lost track of it. Gonzales also shared the information with those who did not have proper security clearances.

It is certainly the same thing; however, Gonzales was not indicted for the same reasons Clinton wasn't.

The only difference is partisan.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Draft is the key word ... the document was being edited and when it became apparent that there was no legal basis for "grossly negligent" it was quite rightly removed.

I have traced that fact in the same document cited in your post several times. It explains exactly why the evidence for "grossly negligent" wasn't sufficient.

There was no "finding" particularly in light of the legal requirements, the discussion is the internal development.


edit on 17-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Another point made in the Executive Summary is that part of the reason Comey made his public statement in which he told us what she did wrong and that they weren't going to hold her accountable was to also send the message that if anyone else in the FBI were to treat classified information the same way former secretary Clinton did, they would be held accountable, but that Hillary was a special case:


Other witnesses told the OIG that Comey included this criticism to avoid creating the appearance that the FBI was “letting [Clinton] off the hook,” as well as to “messag[e]” the decision to the FBI workforce to emphasize that employees would be disciplined for similar conduct and to distinguish the Clinton investigation from the cases of other public figures who had been prosecuted for mishandling violations.


OIG report -(direct .pdf link)

So FBI employees, "would be disciplined for similar conduct," as Hillary, but she would not be because, reasons.
edit on 17-6-2018 by jadedANDcynical because: he told us



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Hmm ... one of those reasons was that Alberto Gonzales had done the same thing and was not indicted for the same reasons.

The reason is that "gross negligence" could not be proven in either case, at least, that was the conclusion of the OIG in both cases - see above.

Also "disciplined" is not "indicted" ... right?
edit on 17-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is no indication in the IG report that bias on the part of Strzok/Page harmed any investigation in any way.


Clarification - The IG indicated no harm against Clinton investigation. It clearly says the opposite with regards to TRump and this is one of the reasons the OIG is now investigating the FBI/DOJ handling of the TRump investigation.


That's redundant because the only investigation being discussed in the IG report is the Midyear/Clinton Investigation.

The report does not say "the opposite" with regard to any investigation about Trump.




It does with bias.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Which investigation regarding Trump has been harmed by bias according to the IG report?



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They did find Clinton could be prosecuted for her crimes. In addition to the FBI intentionally changing the terminology used they also lied when they raised the "intent" fallacy.

By watering down the terminology and making up there own element of intention they guaranteed their doj would not prosecute her. I also think it is telling in the IG report that they address the Lynch-Bil Clinton meeting, noting that either Bill or Lynch is lying about what was discussed.

Even after the massive conflicts of interest not one person recused themselves in that investigation.

Clinton committed several crimes.
The FBI/DOJ covered for her.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Good point.
That quote shows that Comey was giving special treatment to Clinton.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Which investigation regarding Trump has been harmed by bias according to the IG report?


Trump and the 22 people who have been indicted on charges from more than a decade ago that have absolutely nothing to do with Trump nor Trump Russia collusion. How many of those people have been financially destroyed by this malicious prosecution? Chances are this was the insurance plan Strzok was referring to, coupled with his Trump will never be President.

Mueller and Rosenstein both stated Trump is not a target. If that is so then the mandate for the SC investigation is not present.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That seems to be composed merely of a lot of personal opinion.

The facts, partcularly as revealed in the IG report under discussion, do not support your opinion.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Good point.
That quote shows that Comey was giving special treatment to Clinton.


The IG report states there was no bias against Clinton. Given all the evidence in that report (public anyways) it more than proves a bias in her favor.

A bias is a bias.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

That seems to be composed merely of a lot of personal opinion.

The facts, partcularly as revealed in the IG report under discussion, do not support your opinion.



Says your opinion.

18 USC 793 says otherwise.
edit on 17-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Has the statute of limitations run out on these crimes?

Aren't you a "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" kinda guy?

The logic of going after Hillary Clinton is that she's guilty and deserves to be punished, yet, several of these close Trump associates have confessed to crimes (making them automatically guilty) and in your opinion they are being "harmed"?

Interesting.

The prosecution is not malicious any more than any other. The guilty (and their supporters and sympathizers) always feel like the applicaton of justice is unfair.

The mandate for the SC investigation is the Trump Campaign, not Trump himself.







 
32
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join