BREAKING!
HERE'S THE EVIDENCE!!
HILLARY is DONE!!
Many Americans have been waiting for a hard-hitting bombshell to explode the hidden secrets of
Hillary Clinton like a megaton nuke.
Someone may have finally uncovered the evidence needed to prosecute Hillary Clinton and it
all stems from James Comey about the former Secretary of the State.
Hillary Clinton has been involved, allegedly of course, in numerous scandals.
She's faced backlash on things such as Benghazi.
She's been accused of many things that the list is too long to go on.
But is Comey's memo the dagger in the back of the Clinton syndicate?
It could be, but will someone go forward with it?
Let's explore what has been reported from numerous sources.
So far we've read that James Comey, the former FBI Director, had a memo about Hillary
Clinton that stated there was enough evidence to support claims that Clinton was felonious,
but people had removed mentions of the incriminations or deleted any words of the evidence that
had supported the felony or misdemeanor criminal activity.
It appears as though the information was there and ready to be digested, but someone in question
had removed it, thus no longer incriminating Hillary as the information had been redacted
or removed entirely.
Daily Wire reports: "A bombshell report released on Thursday
reveals that former FBI Director James Comey's memo on former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton said there was "evidence to support a conclusion" that she committed a felony
before subordinates removed multiple references of incriminating terms and deleted mentions
of evidence that supported felony and misdemeanor criminal acts.
The website of Senate Homeland and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson
(R-WI) released the full draft of Comey's memo on Clinton, including the edits to the
draft."
During Comey's so-called investigation, it's reported that the FBI was supposed
to focus on if there was evidence that the classified information was stored or transmitted
improperly to a private server.
That alone is possible grounds for a felony under the realm of mishandling classified
information, regardless of if its intentional, accidental, or grossly negligent.
It also suggests that it becomes a misdemeanor to purposely removed classified information
from systems or storage that the data belongs securely inside.
Parts of Comey's memo can be seen here, as continued by the Daily Wire:
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.
For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the TS/SAP level when
they were sent and received.
These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving
emails from others about the same matters.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's
position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding
about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for such
an email conversation.
…
Once they mention Hillary using a private email server in a grossly negligent way, then
isn't that supposed to be enough to prosecute?
Is it unprofessional, illegal, or both for Clinton to exchange classified information
via a private server that may or may not be secured to government standards used to protect
sensitive data?
Comey may have gotten off the hook by including the words "reasonable person" because
that is entirely subjective.
If Hillary Clinton emails someone, then how would they know if she emailed them from the
correct server?
The person on the receiving end of her emails may not know where Clinton emails from, so
they shouldn't be held accountable for being on that end.
However, knowingly using the private email server to mishandle classified information
should not be something that high ranking government people do.
American data needs to remain classified and protected.
Similarly, In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found the sheer volume
of information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community
at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the "up classified" emails).
This is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on servers not
supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of
the U.S.
Government.
supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of
that information.
…
This part is slightly disturbing due to the mention of the volume of information that
was possibly used on the private server.
Is there any chance that someone could have accessed this?
How do we know Hillary protected her private server and kept the classified information
safe?
We don't honestly know anything about this aspect of it.
We only know, based on Comey's memo, that information was mishandled.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute proscribing gross negligence
in the handling of classified information and of the statute proscribing misdemeanor
mishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
At the outset, we are not aware of a case where anyone has been charged solely based
on the "gross negligence" prohibition in the statute.
This was James Comey saving himself before exiting the job.
The Hill's John Solomon also notes that Senator Johnson sent a letter to FBI Director
Christopher Wray demanding to know why massive edits were made to Comey's draft and why
they were made by subordinates.
"The edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact
on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications of her actions," Johnson wrote.
"This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior
agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an 'insurance
policy' against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions about the FBI's
role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election."
Solomon raised a good point that could turn up to be very controversial.
He's talking about FBI's Peter Strzok who wanted some "insurance policy" (not
a real one) if Trump won the election.
Strzok texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page:
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" – an
apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe – "that there's no way
he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk.
It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . ."
First Hillary.
Now the FBI.
What's next?
What should they do?
Do you think they have enough information to prosecute or should they keep digging?
Is the Trump/Russia collusion story just a distraction from the Hillary/FBI story?
What do you think about this?
Please share this news and scroll down to Comment below and don't forget to subscribe
For more infomation >> Estas aplicaciones le ayudarán a mantener sus propósitos durante todo el transcurso del año - Duration: 2:25. 
For more infomation >> Rosa para a mulher mais linda (música piada) [no ritmo Shape of You] - Duration: 0:53. 
For more infomation >> 살림고수 동네아줌마의 특급 살림 지혜 13가지 - Duration: 9:39. 
For more infomation >> Décoration appartement : ça continue ! - Duration: 2:45. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét