Breaking Brown

July 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton Cleared Even Though She Was “Extremely Careless” and Might’ve Leaked Classified Information to “Hostile Actors”

Hillary Clinton Cleared Even Though She Was “Extremely Careless” and Might’ve Leaked Classified Information to “Hostile Actors”

Hillary Clinton just got away with a crime that the FBI director refuses to call a crime.

In a stunning announcement, FBI Director James Comey explained that “although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information”, Hillary Clinton will not be indicted because “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Keep in mind that this is after Comey revealed that Clinton’s email servers (yes, more than one) contained classified information:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

And Comey also admitted that he could not rule out the possibility that Hillary Clinton’s actions resulted in “hostile actors” gaining access to her emails:

We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Still, Comey insists that we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

ZeroHedge, however, did find a case that would support bringing charges against Clinton:

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.

Yes, you read right. The FBI charged Nishimuri, 50, for doing the same thing that Hillary Clinton was just cleared of doing. Like Hillary Clinton, Nishimuri had no malicious intent.

Add to that the fact that Hillary Clinton lied about these emails having nothing to do with work:

What we are now faced with is a crisis level of corruption among governmental officials who, regardless of political party, cover each other’s backs while throwing the rest of us to the wolves. Although this case involves Hillary Clintom, the ramifications are far-reaching.

0 likes Black News , Black Politics , ybw
Share: / / /

9 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Cleared Even Though She Was “Extremely Careless” and Might’ve Leaked Classified Information to “Hostile Actors”

  1. Johnw11 says:

    No informed person ever thought this would end other than the way it did.
    What I find sad, as far as African Americans are concerned, is how too many are now cheering and supporting their own abuse and demise.  This they do by following the leadership and political advice of paid liars and hustlers: many of the liars and hustlers shroud themselves in the vapors of the civil rights movement. This increases their “relatedness” effect on misinformed and uniformed Blacks, while these lying hustlers are the only ones benefitting from “Miz Hillary.”
    The Black collective — after having rejected the candidate (Sanders) who’d pledged to help them — and has a track record to prove it — are now left with a choice between two self-serving incompetents, committed only to the welfare of the 1%.
    Meanwhile, Blacks can look for more mass incarceration (she’s taking money from private prisons, and must replay them somehow), more “austerity,” (poverty and the community violence and crime it causes, more cuts to social safety nets, etc.), and more destruction of Black families and communities. In short, the same things Blacks have gotten for the past seven years, and a long time before then.

  2. docbhub says:

    Amen Johnw11 and I couldn’t have said it better myself.  You are right in that a lot of people (especially younger brothers and sisters) are starting to wake up as exemplified by late surging support for Bernie in states like Michigan.  I myself am voting third party (likely Green Party, but will not rule out Libertarian Party). I wish for the day when the Greens and Libertarians unite and challenge the Democrat-Republican corporate/corrupt duopoly.

  3. Johnw11 says:

    docbhub  I don’t know who I’m voting for. I know it won’t be Blacks are “super predators” (Jungle Animals), NAFTA move jobs overseas — and cut the victims off welfare, mass incarceration of Blacks — “Miz Hillary.”  It also won’t be for “Libertarians,” too socially right-wing, and economically neo-liberal for me (just like Miz Hillary). I have too much sense and self-respect than disgrace myself by voting for her. Although she’s adopted “Progressive Era rhetoric and slogans, to wrap around right-wing neo-liberal policies,” many people see through the ruse.
    It also won’t be for Trump, although I’m not buying the “Boogieman” label being applied to him by racists GOP,  and racist Dem 1% sycophants and their neo-liberal media allies. I’m not going to vote for evil (“Miz. Hillary”), just because evil tries to hide itself by finger pointing at its opponent; turning the opponent into a “boogieman.” Trump, to my knowledge, has never publically called Blacks  “Jungle  Animals,” put poor people off welfare, locked up more Blacks than any time in history: destroying millions of Black lives and families.
    Too many people are confused, because they get their information from the “idiot box” (TV) and are further misled by con artists and other lying self-serving narcissists: posing as “leaders” and “political analysts.” 
    For years, we have been told by that same cadre of self-servicing clowns that the GOP’s Koch brothers, for example, are the ultimate “evil” socio-politically speaking. But who did they endorse? They endorsed “Miz. Hillary.” That’s not surprising since the Koch Brothers funded the founding of the GOP wing of the Dem party in the mid 1980s that the Clintons belong to: the so-called “New” AKA “Third Way” Dems. Look it up. Nothing but GOP, posing as FDR and LBJ Dems.
    Yet people keep voting for them without getting FDR (New Deal, Social Security, etc.) or LBJ (Civil Rights, Medicaid for the poor, etc.) results.
    The reason for this voting behavior is clear: in previous times people voted for policy that met their socioeconomic needs, now people vote just be voting “against” some “boogieman,” which every election, without fail, a new “boogieman” is created.
    Meanwhile, while everyone is focusing on voting against the latest “boogieman,” the ones they do vote for are busy trying to take away the progress of FDR and LBJ.
    I am under no illusion that the next president will be Trump or “Miz Hillary.” Nevertheless, I will vote for neither of them. In fact, given what is known about the socio-economic-political mood of the country, and given Miz Hillary’s weakness as a candidate, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Trump is not the next president. The more they attack him, the more he rises. They say he’s “crazy,” but he’s crazy like a fox.

  4. Johnw11 says:

    ministerbruce  Seek help.

  5. Johnw11 says:

    ministerbruce  I think I will have a little fun with you without violating ethics. So here it goes:
    Only two types of people supported Hillary over Sanders, rich people and fools.
    Which one are you?

  6. Johnw11 says:

    ministerbruce Just what I predicted, you didn’t answer the question. Therefore, it’s a good thing I already know the answer.
    Since you are not rich, that leaves only one other possibility.
    But I’ve decided to not have fun with you. It wouldn’t be fair for me to take advantage of you intellectually: given how far behind you are.
    Suffice it to say that you, and those who behaved as you did in their voting choice, are the only “loser(s)” in the recent primary elections.
    Here’s why:
    (1) You voted against your OWN children’s and grandchildren’s educational future. You know full-well you don’t have money to send your children to college, and it’s highly likely you — and / or many like you — don’t even qualify for student loans, albeit the loans are rip-offs. Yet, you voted as if you do have the tuition money or credit qualifications. In short, you voted to have your tax dollars continue to go to the 1%, instead of helping you, your loved ones and community.
    Oh, you are such a smart “winner”!
    (2) You voted against your own economic security. You know full-well you are barely getting by on whatever source of income you have. Yet, you voted as if you are rich and cavorting on Wall-Street. You voted to give your Social Security to the rich; voted to continue working for unlivable wages, etc.. Oh my goodness, what a “smart” informed “winner” you are.
    (3) Lastly, you voted to keep your community unsafe. Let’s say you don’t live in an unsafe community, so the poverty and sufferings of others don’t bother you. But what if you should get stranded for some reason in one of those environments. Would it affect you then? Sanders proposed to spend $billions in those economically oppressed communities to put people to work and school, so as to end the poverty and violence that results from poverty.
    But you voted against that. See how smart you are? Hillary promised you nothing. And she even said that it is “unrealistic”  for you to expect anything that would help you, since she has already pledged to give everything to where everything is already going — the rich.
    But you are cool with that. See what a winner you are. And you’re smart too.
    No more replies from me.  Other than, you say you’ve already gotten all the help you need. May I suggest that you seek help elsewhere?  Obviously, since you are behaving against your own, and your own children’s, best interests, the help you think you’ve received wasn’t help at all. Help is supposed to assist you in developing healthy patterns of behavior in your own best interests, not  to behave against your own best interests.
    Then, on the other hand, maybe you were resistant and wouldn’t listen and otherwise cooperate. Your declaration that you’ve gotten all the help you need is an indication that you probably didn’t listen.

  7. Sea Pea says:

    I wish there was a black party I could vote for. The Green Party seems to be everything but us….

  8. Johnw11 says:

    Sea Pea  You vote for candidates based on their “POLICIES” not their identity. Everyone who is Black is not on your side just because they’re Black. I can think of many dozens of Black faces in high places who are selling Blacks down the abyss.

  9. xapazu01 says:

    its very nice……

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Support Independent Black Media

Support Independent Black Media

Make a One Time Donation

Subscribe to our Exclusive Paid Newsletter