Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Loretta Lynch – Bill Clinton tarmac meeting now makes sense, it was the end not the beginning

Loretta Lynch – Bill Clinton tarmac meeting now makes sense, it was the end not the beginning

A signal to the Clintons that all was good; the FBI had made its exoneration decision, and key investigators believed Lynch was aware.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRWDP-PWunE

The meeting between then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in Lynch’s jet on a tarmac at Phoenix airport on June 27, 2016, would have remained a secret if not discovered by a local news crew.

Our first post about the tarmac meeting was on June 29, 2016, Gross appearance of impropriety in AG Lynch private meeting with Bill Clinton:

What do you call an Attorney General who meets privately with the husband of a person under FBI investigation, and only discloses it when asked?

Loretta Lynch….

Neither Lynch nor Bill Clinton are dummies. They both know that such a private meeting creates the appearance of impropriety regardless of what was discussed. Bill Clinton’s wife is being investigated by the FBI — why do you think he dropped in for a chat with Lynch?

Of course they didn’t discuss the case. They didn’t need to.

If there was no appearance of impropriety, why did Lynch wait until a local news crew, apparently tipped off, asked her about it?

It feeds a narrative of the Clintons acting like the fix is in, with Hillary repeatedly bragging that there is no way she’s going to be indicted.

Hillary claimed, the day after her July 3, 2016 FBI interview, that the meeting was by chance, and she only learned of it in the news:

Well, I learned about it in the news. And it was a short, chance meeting at an airport tarmac. Both of their planes, as I understand it, were landing on the same tarmac at about the same time, and the attorney general’s husband was there, they said hello, they talked about grandkids, which is very much on our minds these days, golf, their mutual friend, former Attorney General Janet Reno, it was purely social. They did not veer off of speaking about those kinds of very common exchanges.

At the 2017 one-year anniversary of the tarmac meeting, I wrote about the impact of the tarmac meeting based on what was known as at the time:

The tarmac meeting set a number of events in motion that would shake the campaign, and remain issues.

Then FBI Director James Comey, in light of the seeming impropriety of the meeting, took over the role that DOJ normally would play.

While Lynch didn’t officially recuse herself, Comey took it on himself to announce that there would be no charges against Hillary Clinton.

He would later testify that the meeting “made me worry that the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation.”

It also led to Comey’s letter just before the election announcing the investigation was restarted…

The tarmac meeting, in Comey’s word, destroyed the credibility of DOJ, forcing him to act….

When Comey testified, after his firing, that Lynch told him not to use the term “investigation” when referring to the investigation of Hillary, that tarmac meeting once again became the context of possible collusion by Lynch to help Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

We now know a lot more about the sequence of events, which now strongly suggests that the tarmac meeting was not the start of events that led to the exoneration. Rather, it now appears that the tarmac meeting was the end of that process, the signal to the Clintons that all was taken care of.

The key facts we know now but did not know then are:

  1. The tarmac meeting was planned, not spontaneous, as we covered on August 5, 2017, ACLJ: DOJ Document Dump Shows Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Summit Planned, Media Coverup.
  2. The conduct of Lynch in trying to conceal details was not consistent with it being an innocent meeting, as we covered on August 7, 2017, Loretta Lynch used alias “Elizabeth Carlisle” to email about Bill Clinton tarmac meeting and August 10, 2017, Why did Loretta Lynch need DOJ Talking Points about a meeting she alone attended?
  3. The FBI has tried its best not to produce documents regarding the tarmac meeting, and when it did, those documents focused heavily on how the meeting was discovered, as Judicial Watch reported on November 30, 2017.
  4. The FBI decided, sometime by early May 2016, not to charge Hillary. The drafts of the exoneration statement now are public, and show a concerted effort to reword the language to support exoneration. These drafts took place prior to the tarmac meeting and prior to the interview of Hillary on July 4th weekend.
  5. Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was part of the team investigating Hillary, was removed from the Mueller investigation of supposed Russia collusion in the summer  of 2016 2017 for sending anti-Trump text messages (though the removal was not disclosed for several months). Strzok was involved in editing and softening the Comey draft exoneration statement.
  6. Strzok was having an affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Based on text messages recently released, it appears they believed Hillary would not be charged and suggested Lynch Knew the Outcome of FBI Hillary Probe in Advance.

So what significance does the tarmac meeting take in this new context?

Remember, Lynch insisted that she and Clinton only talked about grandchildren and other non-investigation matters during that half hour conversation. That didn’t make sense if the tarmac meeting was the start of a collusive effort, there must have been something more.

But the tarmac meeting being only small talk does make sense if it was the end point, not the starting point. By then, it was clear within the FBI that Hillary would be exonerated, the statement already was drafted and re-drafted and reviewed, and Lynch likely knew it. Hillary’s interview, which was not under oath and not recorded, was a formality so the predetermined decision could assume the patina of legitimacy.

So the tarmac meeting very likely signaled to Hillary through Bill that all was good, that there was nothing to worry about regarding her upcoming FBI interview.

How would that signal take place? It could have been stated verbally, but more likely was the proverbial nod and wink. If anyone understands body language, it’s Bill Clinton. He didn’t need to be told in words, though we can’t rule that out.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is what sedition looks like.
This is an enormous conspiracy and prison is the only acceptable remedy.

Remember how many people went to prison over the Watergate break in? Watergate pales in comparison, and Watergate did not involve sedition, and likely treason. (Obama, klinton, rice, power, jarrett, lerner, mueller and a hundred other suspects – most still in power in our government).

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to TheFineReport.com. | January 23, 2018 at 3:28 pm

    I recommend the “traditional” punishment for traitors.

    It’s very possible john mccain is criminally culpable in the ongoing sedition conspiracy —

    House Intel panel subpoenas McCain associate over Trump dossier:
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/366614-house-intel-panel-subpoenas-mccain-associate-over-trump-dossier

      I say this with no malice, but with sadness, even though like you I am upset at the way McCain let himself be used by our enemies – but I sincerely believe that the reason we haven’t heard anything out of McCain since well before the holidays is that he has less than 6 months left to live. Maybe far less.

      I don’t believe the press releases coming out occasionally are written by him, I think he has a very dedicated staff working as hard as they can to try and keep his true condition private.

        regulus arcturus in reply to Tom Servo. | January 23, 2018 at 7:56 pm

        That’s correct.

        McCain will never be back to DC as I stated when he last left, and though I have no firsthand info, I’ve heard local rumors that he is a few weeks, possibly days from death.

        You give his staff far too much credit, though. I have encountered them, and they are neither hard working, nor friendly.

        Tom,

        McCain didn’t ‘let’ himself be used: he jumped in eagerly.

        This whole thing about honoring an unrepentant wrong-doer when they’re dying is baloney. The truth is, the sooner McCain is gone from the Senate, the better – along with Flake.

        McCain’s memory is not something to particularly . He stopped being a hero many, many, many years ago. Unless the NY Times is giving out a Useful Idiot Lifetime Achievement Award, there’s little to honor about McCain that wasn’t already honored when he came home with other POWs.

        gee…what a tragedy that would be….
        have detested him for decades, will not rejoice in his passing nor will I mourn.

      McQuisling has always been ready to put a knife in the back of anyone who stood in his way He has always been about seeking power and going with what ever it took to get a little bit for himself. His envy of Trump was and is out of control.

    Neo,

    There is a crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. It’s complicated, but read the following examples where the privilege would not apply:

    “Walt meets with criminal defense attorney Saul for legal advice and asks about the penalties for cooking and selling meth. Saul explains the penalties, and also explains that profits from illegal drug sales can lead to money laundering charges. The conversation is privileged because Walt merely sought advice about penalties. But the result would be different if Walt asked Saul for advice on hiding or destroying evidence, or how to launder his profits by funneling them through a legitimate business.”

    “A securities broker who asks her attorney which documents she should shred to avoid being charged with securities violations is asking the attorney to help her commit a criminal fraud. The prosecution, assuming it suspects or has any indication this conversation took place, could call the lawyer to testify about it. If the judge agreed, the lawyer wouldn’t be able to use the attorney-client privilege as a basis to refuse to answer questions about the broker’s document-shredding consultation.”

    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-crime-fraud-exception-the-attorney-client-privilege.html

    PRISON SENTENCES OF THE ‘WATERGATE SEVEN’:

    The seven Nixon advisors and aides later indicted in 1974 were:

    John N. Mitchell – former United States Attorney General and director of Nixon’s 1968 and 1972 election campaigns; faced a maximum of 30 years in prison and $42,000 in fines; on February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison, which was later reduced to one to four years; Mitchell actually served 19 months.

    H. R. Haldeman – White House chief of staff, considered the second most powerful man in the government during Nixon’s first term; faced a maximum of 25 years in prison and $16,000 in fines; in 1975, he was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and received an 18-month prison sentence.

    John Ehrlichman – former assistant to Nixon in charge of domestic affairs; faced a maximum of 25 years in prison and $40,000 in fines. Ehrlichman was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury and other charges; he served 18 months in prison.

    Charles Colson – former White House counsel specializing in political affairs; plead nolo contendere on June 3, 1974 to one charge of obstruction of justice, having persuaded prosecution to change the charge from one of which he believed himself innocent to another of which he believed himself guilty, in order to testify freely;[6] he was sentenced to 1 to 3 years of prison and fined $5,000; Colson served seven months.

    Gordon C. Strachan – White House aide to Haldeman; faced a maximum of 15 years in prison and $20,000 in fines. Charges against him were dropped before trial.

    Robert Mardian – aide to Mitchell and counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the President in 1972; faced 5 years in prison and $5,000 in fines. His conviction was overturned on appeal.[7]

    Kenneth Parkinson – counsel for the Committee to Re-elect the President; faced 10 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. He was acquitted at trial. Although Parkinson was a lawyer, G. Gordon Liddy was in fact counsel for the Committee to Re-elect the President.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_Seven

    Watergate was NOTHING compared to the offenses punishable by obama/klinton sedition conspiracy that is unfolding before the world.

This was always dirty. Lynch lied her lil’ ass off. Dollar Bill, of course, leched after her lil’ ass, but that’s beside the point…

Obama chose his lieutenants for a reason. It just wasn’t the reason he stated publicly.

4th armored div | January 23, 2018 at 3:44 pm

time to have under oath the WHOLE Zero top admin.

Billy Bob still needs to be ad camp Fed with adjoining cells of Hillarious (now that would be cruel and unusual punishment).

A FULL audit of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
MCAuliffe
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ralph-northam-pillowcases-ap-jpo-180116_4x3_992.jpg

Comey, Lynch, the FBI secret society –
Maybe Gitmo is more appopriate – LOL

😉

    4th armored div in reply to 4th armored div. | January 23, 2018 at 3:48 pm

    Let’s NOT forget the gun runner Eric ‘the red’ Holder,
    DWS of the Millions to Pakis IT thieves.

    people please add to this list, to be forawrded to SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch…..

Well loretta is true to her principles: #blackLIESmatter

The Obama stain keeps on spreading.

So, their effort to frame Trump/Comey was with the pretext of granting immunity to Clinton/Lynch.

    rabidfox in reply to n.n. | January 23, 2018 at 9:41 pm

    Does the grant of immunity stand if the ones granting that immunity are themselves involved in the crime or its coverup?

      Usually, there are conditions to the immunity: like testifying at trial against other defendants.

      The sleazy deal probably has a lot of escape clauses: after all, what has klinton done for law enforcement in exchange for the immunity?

“How would that signal take place? It could have been stated verbally, but more likely was the proverbial nod and wink.”

Wrong. This was a command performance. Hillary was nervous and wanted to be sure that there would be no surprises at her “interview.” So Lynch was summoned to give her personal assurance that the fix was in. They may have used slight obfuscation, “Tell me how things stand with our mutual problem,” rather than using the words “investigation” or “coverup” but it was still there in the open.

That’s the only explanation that makes sense. This was a high risk meeting after all (though possibly not their first. We just have no evidence of others). You don’t take that kind of risk so you can NOT discuss what the thing is about.

    Milhouse in reply to irv. | January 23, 2018 at 8:09 pm

    High risk? What risk? Chances were good that nobody would ever find out about it, but even if it did come out (as indeed it did) they were only risking a bit of embarrassment.

    Yackums in reply to irv. | January 30, 2018 at 6:39 am

    Lynch: “The arrows are in front of you.”

    See I Samuel Ch. 20

They are in trouble. Those memos must be bad. You can see it in their faces now. A sense of resignation that something bad is about to happen and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to elle. | January 23, 2018 at 4:35 pm

    Last week some people noticed (I saw the comments on Friday, Jan. 19) that Obama, Hillary, and Lynch’s Twitter accounts I think it was had been dead for 3 days then.

    That is what always happened in 2008 when Obama was stealing the primaries from Hillary, and then later running against McCain. It happened anytime seriously damaging facts against Obama came out to the public.

    Are their Twitter feeds still dead?

    “…something bad is about to happen and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.”

    Only the GOPe can stop it. And they are going to try. Especially given that John McCain might be as criminally liable as klinton.

Comey has done nothing but lie throughout the Hillary e-mail investigation. I’ve been peripherally involved in a couple of these investigations as I was a Special Security Officer in the Navy. When he gave that 5 July 2016. presser and ran through the charge sheet I have never heard anyone describe a stronger case of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(f). As soon Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would take the case I knew the fix was in.

I suspected earlier. I saw Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on some talking head news shows in June, and Chaffetz would say things along the lines of “I don’t trust the Obama administration, but if Director Comey tells us something I’ll believe him. And I’d think to myself, shut up Jason. You’re just telling Obama who he needs to send over to lie to you.

During Comey’s testimony on 8 July, Comey said some remarkable things. First of all, he said that he didn’t think gross negligence was a constitutional standard. And I thought to myself, this Comey is a man of many parts. He’s the FBI director, the AG, and now he’s the Supreme Court. I’m a familiar with a couple of SCOTUS cases in which the court ruled that gross negligence is sufficient to establish mens rea. As long as two things exist in the mind of an individual. Consciousness of the probable consequences of an act, then a reckless disregard of causing those consequences.

As an SSO I’d read someone in, have them sign an NDA, log the date and time I had read them in and have them sign my log, then I’d sign the log. When someone was caught mishandling classified in a grossly negligent manner (and I think in Clinton case you could easily show actual intent) NCIS would come over to my SCIF and ask for copies of my paperwork. I’d give it to them and they’d say, “Thank you very much.” And no judge would allow them to play dumb, which is what they would always try to do.

But Comey allowed Clinton to play dumb. He said during his testimony that she didn’t seem very sophisticated about how to handle classified. So now in addition to all his other roles he’s her defense attorney.

And another thing he said was he recommended not bringing charges because due to Lynch’s appearance of conflict of interest only he could credibly announce the decision not to charge Clinton. So clearly that tarmac visit was entirely stage managed. Because Barack Obama heard Jason Chaffetz loud and clear and sent over the one guy in his arsenal who could credibly lie to him.

Since his testimony was under oath, and he testified several other times under oath, it should be easy to prove perjury. But I doubt anything will come of it. AG Sessions issued this statement:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/in-search-of-lost-texts-3.php

“If any wrongdoing were to be found to have caused this gap, appropriate legal disciplinary action measures will be taken.”

Why hasn’t Sessions himself appointed an Independent Counsel to look into this? It has not the Russian investigation; it concerns potential possibly criminal wrongdoing in his department. I have now idea what “legal disciplinary action measures” are but if he doesn’t appoint an Independent Counsel it means the criminals at DoJ and in the FBI will handle everything entirely in house as a mere disciplinary matter.

    Observer in reply to Arminius. | January 23, 2018 at 5:59 pm

    “I’m a familiar with a couple of SCOTUS cases in which the court ruled that gross negligence is sufficient to establish mens rea.”
    ______________________

    Yes, that was one of the dumber parts of Comey’s excuse for not recommending charges. Negligence has long been the mens rea for certain crimes. In fact, it is one of the four states of mind listed in the Model Penal Code for establishing criminal intent. (The four, in order of culpability, are: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently).

    For Comey to claim that “gross negligence” (or “extreme carelessness” or whatever equivalent weasel words were used by the FBI to describe Hillary’s conduct) was somehow legally inadequate to prove criminal intent was just flat-out wrong as a matter of law.

    But of course, as we all know now, Comey never had any intention of recommending charges for Hillary, no matter what his phony “investigation” revealed, so he had to come up with some sort of justification, no matter how lame.

      Milhouse in reply to Observer. | January 23, 2018 at 8:14 pm

      So can you cite even one case where DOJ prosecuted someone under this statute for mere gross negligence? Note well, do not cite any DOD prosecution, or you lose; DOD’s policies are entirely irrelevant here. Comey worked for DOJ, and therefore followed its policies, and he claimed to have searched in vain for any precedent in which DOJ had prosecuted such a case. If you think he’s wrong, feel free to cite one.

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2018 at 9:10 pm

        No, Milhouse, the standards are exactly the same. It’s the same statute, 18 U.S. Code § 793(f). And the final court of appeal in the military legal system is the U.S. Supreme Court. We are talking about two federal court systems and if the statute is the same then the same standards apply as in the the civilian federal court system.

        The standards would be different if I were talking about trying someone for a military-specific crime covered by the UCMJ. But apparently you didn’t read very carefully.

        The Espionage Act is the same Espionage Act in either federal court system. And the military has the same Constitution as the civilian system. At least 5 individuals have been convicted under 18 U.S. Code § 793(f). Even more have been convicted under para (5). That covers transmitting national defense information to anyone not authorized to receive it. Which Clinton is most definitely guilty of having committed since, off the top of my head, she transmitted classified to Sydney Blumenthal and her daughter Chelsea.

        So, you lose Milhouse. You can no more be convicted unconstitutionally in the military federal court system than you can be in the civilian federal court system. If gross negligence were an unconstitutional standard as Comey claimed then the SCOTUS would have tossed those convictions out long ago.

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 12:40 am

          Arminius, the law is the same, but DOJ and DOD are entitled to different views of that law. DOD policy may be to prosecute for mere negligence, but DOJ policy is not to.

          Saucier was not merely negligent; he took those pictures in the full knowledge that it was illegal, with the intent of committing a crime. In Comey’s words, “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”. And he was convicted under §793(e), not (d) or (f).

          At least 5 individuals have been convicted under 18 U.S. Code § 793(f).

          But none for mere gross negligence.

          Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Clinton:

          Once again, military prosecutions are not conducted by DOJ, therefore it is dishonest of FineReport to bring them up as if they contradict Comey’s claim. But we already know that he is a deeply dishonest person, so it shouldn’t surprise us that he acts in character.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 11:06 am

          Since both DoJ’s and DoD’s views r.e. the Espionage Act are shaped by the Supreme Court, we don’t have different views on the same law.

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2018 at 9:29 pm

        Or do you actually think it’s a mere “policy” that we’re talking about? Espionage Act violations aren’t just violations of military law but of civilian law as well. The fact is that Comey didn’t look very hard because he conducted a farce of an investigation. Comey only talked about 18 U.S. Code § 793(f). He never mentioned para (d)(I don’t know how I kept hitting the 5 key). Ever wonder why, Milhouse? Because then he couldn’t have spewed that nonsense about how gross negligence is an unconstitutional standard.

        *yawn*

        Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Clinton:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437595/military-prosecutions-show-gross-negligence-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2018 at 9:59 pm

        Oh, and by the way Milhouse:

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/20/navy-machinist-kristian-saucier-sentenced-over-cla/

        Former sailor Kristian Saucier was convicted in a federal district court by DoJ attorneys under the exact same statute as Hillary Clinton, 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. And he faced the exact same penalty as she would have; 2-10 years.

        And it had to be para (f) as since he was never charged with transmitting or attempting to transmit the information with eliminates pars (a)-(e). This is how the U.S. District Court judge described the sailor’s offense.

        “Instead, Judge Underhill said the sailor had done something “beyond stupid,” and equated his actions with those of a motorist being pulled over for speeding amid a freeway full of careless drivers, CNN reported from the hearing in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

        “Selective enforcement is really not a good argument … those arguments don’t really carry much water,” Judge Underhill said, according to the network.

        ‘We need to make sure that every service person understands the consequences of playing fast and loose with important information,’ he said.”

        How did Comey describe this? Oh, yes, “extremely careless.”

        Saucier’s attorney believed that citing the “Clinton defense” the judge was more lenient than he otherwise would have. It was the exact same statute that Comey declined to prosecute Clinton under. So the judge deviated from the recommended federal guidelines that called for a sentence of 5-7 years and even gave him less than the minimum required 2 years and only sentenced him to 1 year in prison.

        But he got the felony record that Clinton should have had.

        And, Milhouse, you still believe anything that liar Comey said?

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 12:44 am

          Former sailor Kristian Saucier was convicted in a federal district court by DoJ attorneys under the exact same statute as Hillary Clinton, 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. And he faced the exact same penalty as she would have; 2-10 years.

          And it had to be para (f) as since he was never charged with transmitting or attempting to transmit the information with eliminates pars (a)-(e). This is how the U.S. District Court judge described the sailor’s offense.

          Wrong. It was para (e). Unauthorized retention of defense information.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 10:49 am

          Milhouse, there’s something pathological about you. You have no clue what you’re talking about. But you’re never unsure. Or at least you try to bluff your way through things like this due to some deep emotional need to always be right.

          “Saucier was not merely negligent; he took those pictures in the full knowledge that it was illegal, with the intent of committing a crime. ”

          And no one had been court-martialed for the exact same behavior despite taking similar pictures. Others had done the exact same thing. This is beyond dispute; it’s why the Navy had to issue directives telling submarine sailors not to bring cell phones (with integral cameras) aboard. Despite that taking such pictures had always been handled through non-judicial punishment; losing a stripe and perhaps a months pay. In other words, not a crime. That’s why the judge described his behavior as “beyond stupid” but rather than willful, with the intent to commit a crime, grossly negligent.

          But if you’re going to claim otherwise then by a much greater measure so did Clinton, and for the same reason as Saucier. Because she was trained to know. That’s why we make people sign NDAs and log every time they are trained in the proper handling of classified. So they can’t claim they didn’t know. By the same standard as Saucier she knew what she was doing was illegal, and she did it anyway with the full knowledge she was committing a crime. Because in any federal court, military or civilian, all we need are the NDAs and records of training to prove the actions were willful. No judge, not even a civilian federal court judge, would allow her to claim she didn’t know exactly what she was doing and that it was a crime. She signed paperwork where she agreed that she knew what she intended to do (remove the classified information and store it on her private server) was a crime. Even worse, she had originating classification authority as Secretary of State. Which means she was required to know how what classification markings to apply to unmarked classified information. And she transmitted classified information to unauthorized persons.

          So by any stretch of the imagination what Clinton did was a thousand times worse than Saucier. Comey was lying.

          You need help.

          Arminius: Former sailor Kristian Saucier was convicted in a federal district court by DoJ attorneys under the exact same statute as Hillary Clinton, 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. And he faced the exact same penalty as she would have; 2-10 years.

          The cases were quite different. The government could show that Saucier was aware that he was mishandling classified information, while the government could *not* show that Clinton knew she was mishandling classified information. Consequently, Saucier pleaded guilty, while no charges were filed against Clinton.

          Email, whether .gov or .com, is not considered secure for classified information, but is used for day-to-day communications. Clinton extensively used the State Department’s secure system for classified information, and none of the information on her emails was properly marked classified. It’s reasonable that she had no intention or motive for sending classified information by email.

          If you don’t know that the information is classified, then you can’t be charged under the Espionage Act.

          Arminius: And no one had been court-martialed for the exact same behavior despite taking similar pictures. Others had done the exact same thing.

          That is also incorrect. While other sailors had taken selfies which incidentally captured classified information — and for which they were administratively punished —, the government was prepared to show that Saucier methodically photographed secure areas. Hence, Saucier pleaded guilty.

          bhwms in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 12:01 pm

          “…while the government could *not* show that Clinton knew she was mishandling classified information. Consequently, Saucier pleaded guilty, while no charges were filed against Clinton.”

          Waitaminute. Everyone who has a clearance has to go to the compliance training. In that training they are told – there is a secure system, and an unsecured system. No matter how stupid, no matter how commonly known – something MARKED with classified tags and headers should NEVER leave the secure network without authorization.

          They found documents that had classified markings among the emails on the Clinton email server. Someone had to KNOW when they removed it from the secure system and retransmitted it on the unsecured system. Where is that person or persons, and why aren’t they under arrest? Anyone with a clearance who saw the document(s) go by, saw the tags/headers, and didn’t report it, is also liable.

          Further, classified or not, there are criminal violations for concealing, removal, or destruction of government documents. 18 U.S.C. § 2071 The case should be made that the entire Clinton Email server was a giant attempt to conceal documents from FOIA and destroy them with impunity. More than 2 people had to be involved who took actions, so it is also a conspiracy.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 12:17 pm

          No, Zachriel, they government couldn’t show that in Saucier’s case. All they could show the Judge was that he had been grossly negligent. Which is why he juge ruled that “‘We need to make sure that every service person understands the consequences of playing fast and loose with important information,’”

          Note the lack of intent.

          And what part of the fact that Clinton signed paperwork agreeing that removing classified from its authorized place of storage, such as a private home-brew server and then transmitting it to persons not authorized to receive it, is a crime are you people not getting? To establish that Clinton was aware what she was doing was criminal, all you need to do is produce the paperwork she signed. Then the defendant can’t feign ignorance or claim not to remember her training. It’s why we keep records. If Clinton tried to claim otherwise the judge, any judge whether civilian or military, would tell the jury to disregard her statements. And would instruct the jury that the defendant is a trained professional who knew exactly what she was doing. Since I was never a submariner I don’t know what sort of paperwork Saucier had to sign regarding secure areas of the submarine. If any; I know it’s a slam dunk to prove that anyone who is read in knows what they are doing, and knows the criminal penalties for failing failing to properly safeguard classified.

          The bottom line is that Comey deliberately undercharged Clinton so he could lie and say the case was weak because from the start they never intended to prosecute her. The case against Clinton was far stronger than the one against Saucier.

          And tell me again, Zachriel, Milhouse, what level was your security clearance. Do you have the DD214s to prove it.

          I do.

          bhwms: They found documents that had classified markings among the emails on the Clinton email server.

          None of the emails were properly marked classified. None had headers. Out of thousands of emails, only three had paragraph markings for confidential, the lowest level of classification, but they did not include headers or cover letter, so were not properly marked. It’s reasonable to suppose it could have been overlooked by Clinton.

          bhwms: The case should be made that the entire Clinton Email server was a giant attempt to conceal documents from FOIA and destroy them with impunity.

          That’s a separate statute, but also requires some proof of intention.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 12:26 pm

          “Everyone who has a clearance has to go to the compliance training. In that training they are told – there is a secure system, and an unsecured system. No matter how stupid, no matter how commonly known – something MARKED with classified tags and headers should NEVER leave the secure network without authorization.”

          Moreover, bhwms, the training also requires acknowledging the criminal penalties for mishandling classified.

          I should have mentioned I was a defense contractor. So had I done what Clinton had done I would have gone before a civilian federal court judge. A DoJ attorney would have been the prosecutor. And DoJ would have treated me NO differently than a DoD attorney. And the civilian Judge would have treated me exactly the same as a military judge. The standards are exactly the same, and their views on the law are exactly the same.

          I’m done arguing with these know-nothings.

          Arminius: All they could show the Judge was that he had been grossly negligent.

          Saucier knew the information was classified, and took the pictures anyway. Then he tried to destroy the evidence.

          Arminius: And what part of the fact that Clinton signed paperwork agreeing that removing classified from its authorized place of storage, such as a private home-brew server and then transmitting it to persons not authorized to receive it, is a crime are you people not getting?

          If she didn’t know the particular information was classified, then she can’t be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 12:35 pm

          OK, Zachriel, you’re really demonstrating you’re a know-nothing. People like you are why Clinton and Comey knew they could get away with their lies. If you had ever been read in you’d know it doesn’t matter if the information is properly marked or marked at all. It’s your duty to recognize it even if it’s unmarked. That’s so people like Clinton can’t get away with telling her assistant to strip classified of its markings and send it to her on her unclas system. Which, according to her emails, is exactly what she did.

          And, oh, by the way, that shows intent.

          But I would have recognized classified information, marked or not, and as I was required to do I would have had to report whoever sent it to me.

          It’s like classified information handling 101. But since you never had a clearance you’re gullible enough to swallow the Clinton/Comey lies. But be a know-nothing and be proud of your ignorance.

          Arminius: OK, Zachriel, you’re really demonstrating you’re a know-nothing.

          Notably, when losing the argument, you resort to ad hominem and appeals to your personal authority.

          Arminius: If you had ever been read in you’d know it doesn’t matter if the information is properly marked or marked at all.

          What matters is whether the person knows whether it was classified or not. If someone hands you a folder, and you lose it, and it turns out that you were unaware that contained classified information, you can’t be criminally charged.

          Arminius: That’s so people like Clinton can’t get away with telling her assistant to strip classified of its markings and send it to her on her unclas system. Which, according to her emails, is exactly what she did.

          The incident was a perfectly valid and common practice. It’s called a “non-paper”, and it means to remove classified information, then send it without classified markings. In this case, it referred to talking points Clinton was to use when speaking with a foreign representative.

          david7134 in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 4:54 pm

          Zachriel is a kid or rather a debating club operating under the name they only use liberal talking points and have no depth of knowledge.

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | January 24, 2018 at 6:59 pm

          Milhouse, there’s something pathological about you. You have no clue what you’re talking about. But you’re never unsure.

          Not true. Sometimes I’m unsure of something, and I say so, and ask for information from anyone who knows. But generally if I don’t know and can’t find out I don’t post about it.

          That Saucier was charged under paragraph (e) is a fact, and yes, I am absolutely sure about it. You are not entitled to your own facts, and your guess that it was paragraph (f) was simply wrong. Why should I pretend to be unsure about that? You could easily have done the same minimal research I did, and found the truth instead of guessing, and then you wouldn’t have posted misinformation.

          And no, Saucier was not negligent and was not charged with negligence. The government did prove — and he admitted — that he knew exactly what he was doing. He didn’t just take a selfie and inadvertently capture a classified background. He took his pictures for the express purpose of documenting the submarine’s interior and removing that information for his future private use.

          Finally, something I don’t know for sure, but I bet you don’t either. I don’t believe it’s ever been disclosed whether Clinton took the training you describe. How do you know she took it? Just because you and everyone you know was compelled to take it doesn’t mean she did. I can easily imagine her blowing it off, because she was too busy, or too important, or claimed to have already learned about that stuff when she was First Lady, or just because she didn’t feel like it. Who was going to force her, and how?

Remember, these GOPe Senators thought she would be a great AG so the voted to confirm her.

Ayotte (R-NH)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)

Any familiar names?

Sorry, this makes little sense.

Both parties had to have known how bad this meeting would look, yet both thought it worth the risk. And what would be worth that risk? Certainly not just delivery of a relatively simple and almost trivial message. No, both parties had to be present in person because something very valuable and very underhanded was being offered for sale, something requiring horse-trading by the two. Something so valuable and/or underhanded that the negotiations had to take place in a room which could be swept beforehand for bugs or recorders, and completely free of even casual eavesdroppers. Something like, maybe, an airplane cabin.

A simple “the fix is in, she’s in the clear” could have been handled during a “chance” meeting while doing something innocuous—standing in front of the airport coffee machine, perhaps, aborbed in making the big decision about whether to chance the chicken soup again. That, at least, woud be believable. Or even more likely, messages would be handled by intermediaries. “She’s clear” would need no negotiation, so high-level parties to the conspiracy need not have any direct involvement. The Clinton Foundation was certainly accustomed to using intermediaries to conduct its “business” of handling huge cash payoffs, and those were negotiated remotely; we know that Hillary, say, had no personal meetings with bagmen from all the countries trying to conduct business with her department when she was Sec. of State. Those 30K-plus e-mails weren’t all about Chelsea’s baby shower or yoga classes.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to tom_swift. | January 23, 2018 at 5:10 pm

    It does actually make sense if you accept the fact that these people believe they are the aristocracy and the rest of us just the filthy peasants. That is what the left has always wanted to go back to.

    Why have the meeting? Because the peasants aren’t going to know and why would they question their betters.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to tom_swift. | January 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm

    Agreed. Lynch did not need to tell Bill the fix was in. HILLARY knew the fix was in by observing how the FBI conducted the “investigation”.

    We know with 100% certainty HRC committed felonies in how she mishandled classified information. That is indisputable.

    Yet none of the normal rules applied to her: virtually everybody interviewed was immunized; no subpoenas were issued; no search warrants were issued; she was not put under oath; evidence was destroyed; the case was not put to a grand jury, and so on. Hillary could see it was obviously a fake investigation with the outcome predetermined.

G. de La Hoya | January 23, 2018 at 4:59 pm

Yes, thank goodness for the Phoenix local news and the tipster.

regulus arcturus | January 23, 2018 at 6:08 pm

Exactly, it was the final check-in, to ensure everything was going according to plan.

It was also to discuss Lynch’s “reward” for exonerating Hillary, probably continuing as AG in the Clinton Administration, with likely promotion to Supreme Court.

Comey orchestrated the meeting.

Obama wanted a legacy. He got one: The most corrupt administration ever.

Hopefully they end up in jail.

Does anyone see a scenario where any of these people are actually indicted or charged or convicted? They are DEEP STATE in the strongest possible terms. How will a judge be selected? How will a jury be empaneled? How will corruption be routed out from the depths??

    Of course. This isn’t the first gigantic corruption scandal in US history, though it might be the biggest.

    Tammany Hall scandal (democrats!)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

    Warren G. Harding and the The Teapot Dome scandal:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal

    J Edgar Hoover attended orgies, wearing a fluffy black dress to one, and was blackmailed into protecting the Mafia
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fbi-chief-exposed-as-a-secret-transvestite-peter-pringle-reports-from-new-york-on-new-allegations-1471376.html

    Impeachment of Bill Clinton:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

    A lot of heads are going to roll, on the left and on the GOPe soft-left – including John McCains (posthumously?)

    The democrat media will try and protect the conspirators, but we do have a patriot in the White House, a loyal military and a strong Constitutionally-loyal press, mostly online.

      The description of J Edgar Hoover rests entirely on the word of one woman, Susan Rosentiel, a convicted perjurer.

      Harding was one of the USA’s best presidents ever. He knew nothing about the Teapot Dome affair.

        He was good in some ways, bad in others. For being ‘bad in others,’ he lost it all:

        “Harding appointed capable men to his cabinet, including Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover (1874-1964), Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) and Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon (1855-1937). However, he also surrounded himself with individuals who were later accused of misconduct. Harding was popular while in office, but his reputation was tarnished following his death when Americans learned of corruption within his administration–even though he had not engaged in any of this criminal activity. In one infamous incident, known as the Teapot Dome Scandal, Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall (1861-1944) rented public lands to oil companies in exchange for gifts and personal loans. (Fall was later convicted of accepting bribes and spent less than a year in prison.) Other government officials took payoffs and embezzled funds. Harding himself allegedly had extramarital affairs and drank alcohol in the White House, a violation of the 18th Amendment.”
        http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/warren-g-harding

        Harding would have had to be either lame, blind or corrupt himself not to have seen the corruption among the people closest to him. Sort of like obama trying to claim he knew nothing about hillary klinton’s four years of treason, espionage and sedition while she was secretary of state. An otherwise unaccomplished fraud and contrivance, obama was no Warren G. Harding. (Harding was a very successful man prior to entering politics. Obama accomplished nothing: he was a corrupt, leftist plant. He didn’t even write the two books attributed to his name: William Ayers wrote them.)

        Harding was no Donald Trump.

          There was no reason for Harding to know what Fall was doing. There was nothing obviously corrupt about the leases; why should Harding have suspected that Fall was receiving kickbacks — if indeed he was? Remember that the alleged sources of the bribes were acquitted, so who bribed him?

          Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan remain the only decent presidents of the 20th century.

          Oh, I’ll give a half-nod to Ford. He wasn’t nearly as bad as most presidents. But he wasn’t a Harding, let alone a Reagan.

        Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J Edgar Hoover:
        https://www.amazon.co.uk/Official-Confidential-Secret-Edgar-Hoover/dp/0091941776/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320768485&sr=8-1

        From it’s author:

        “New York Judge Edward McLaughlin, former Chief Counsel of the Crime Committee, and Committee investigator William Gallinaro, told me Mrs Rosentiel had been an excellent witness. “I thought her absolutely truthful,” Judge McLauglin said. That too, was in my Hoover biography, and more – but was not quoted by any of those who assailed the passage on Susan Rosentiel in the book. Almost none of them noted, moreover, that a similar account of alleged cross-dressing came to me from two other interviewees, referring to a different location and a different timeframe. On the basis of all of this, and after discussion with my publishers, we included her account – which was broader than the cross-dressing allegation – in the book. I would note, finally, that the cross-dressing allegation is one passage in a biography of some 600 pages. The overall reporting on his sexuality is pertinent to any study of the man, not least in the context of his insistence on the ruthless pursuit of homosexuals. It is one element in the evidence of Director Hoover’s overall abuse of Americans’ rights and freedoms.”

          “There is no Mafia”, said FBI’s Director J. Edgar Hoover:

          “Hoover’s reluctance to seriously challenge the Mafia stemmed from three main factors, according to former FBI agents and criminal-justice researchers. First was his distaste for long, frustrating investigations that more often than not would end with limited success. Second was his concern that mobsters had the money to corrupt agents and undermine the bureau’s impeccable reputation. And third, Hoover was aware that the Mob’s growing financial and political strength could buy off susceptible congressmen and senators who might trim his budget.”

          And fourth: they had pictures of him dressing like traitor bradley manning.

          Sure, the author defends his supposed witness. But the fact is she’s not a credible person. If someone like her were to tell such stories about Trump you would viciously attack anyone who believed her. But you believe her against Hoover because you want to.

          Oh, and he did go after the Mafia, with the full power at his disposal, so this business that he didn’t is nonsense.

The tarmac meeting was planned, not spontaneous, as we covered on August 5, 2017, ACLJ: DOJ Document Dump Shows Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Summit Planned, Media Coverup.

At the linked article the ACLJ is quoted as making such a claim, but it seems completely unsupported by evidence. On the contrary, it seems that Lynch and Clinton only learned of each other’s presence because their security teams coordinated, as of course one would hope and expect to happen any time two Secret Service teams land at the same airport. That is evidence (though far from conclusive) against the meeting having been planned.

In addition, your scenario makes most sense if this meeting was spontaneous. It makes no sense for them to have planned this elaborate “coincidence” just to chat about nothing. But it makes perfect sense that if they just happened to be at the same airport at the same time, Lynch would initiate a conversation at which she could chat about nothing, thus letting Clinton understand that they had nothing important to discuss, because the fix was in.

I have a question, perhaps it’s because I’m just not observant enough. If Lynch said, after the Tarmac meeting was found out, that she’d defer to Comey, why was Comey drafting letters in May? When you end an investigation, it is common for the head of the FBI to write a letter on the person being charged? My understanding is they send recommendations up to the DOJ for that. He wouldn’t be writing this in May, if the decision wasn’t made for him to do it already.

The key seems to be, as Andrew McCarthy is arguing at National Review, that Clinton was never going to be indicted because Obama knew about her private email and sent and received emails with her at that address, including, McCarthy says, one Hillary sent on that infamous insecure Blackberry from Moscow in 2012. Any indictment of Clinton would have involved Obama at the other end of the communication. She was supposed to win the election, and then the whole thing could be buried.

    Arminius in reply to tarheelkate. | January 24, 2018 at 11:11 am

    Sorry, I didn’t see your comment. Later I made a similar comment and excerpted (and linked to) McCarthy’s article.

    He has made similar arguments before based on emails recovered during the Clinton e-mail probe, the the texts between the FBI love birds really seal the deal.

Look, all theses corrupt crooks did not care if you knew because they all believed 100% that Hillary would win and none of this would be investigated so they became careless and did not give a crap what they did…. all of them… Comey, Lynch, Mueller, etc.

Andy McCarthy connects the dots. Clinton couldn’t be prosecuted because if she had been, the fact was he had committed the exact same crime.

“…If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled on both ends of these email exchanges.

If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

…That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point.

…On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.” This effort to obscure Obama’s involvement had an obvious flaw…

…Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Mills. Shortly afterwards, an agitated Mills emailed Podesta: ‘We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.’”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455696/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary

regulus arcturus | January 24, 2018 at 11:03 am

Aside – in the above video still shot showing AG Lynch descending the stairs either before or after the meeting, the gentleman in the red tie appears to be Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton (Democrat).

Has anyone asked why he was there, and what he knew about this meeting?

    I’m sure he was just there as a witness to the fact that they didn’t discuss Hillary’s case. So they could maintain the fiction that there was nothing improper about the Attorney General meeting with the husband of the target of a DoJ investigation.

    As if Lynch would have to blurt out, “The fix is in” for Billy Jeff to understand why she was there. It was all part of the Kabuki theater. She was there to acquire the appearance of impropriety so she’d have to recuse herself. Then it would appear that the “apolitical, straight-arrow, of the unimpeachable character” Comey’s decision was entirely his own.

Well, Milhouse, I have to admit you were right about Saucier. He was convicted under para (e), not (f), so I won’t be using that as an example anymore.

But Clinton should have been charged under either paras (d) or (e) also. Nobody ever accused Saucier of transmitting or attempting to transmit the classified photos to anyone. Clinton did transmit classified information to at least two people; Chelsea and Blumenthal.

Milhouse said:

“Finally, something I don’t know for sure, but I bet you don’t either. I don’t believe it’s ever been disclosed whether Clinton took the training you describe. How do you know she took it? Just because you and everyone you know was compelled to take it doesn’t mean she did.”

I know because during the course of the course of the congressional investigation her NDAs were made public:

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

The first is for TS/SCI, the second is for what we in the Navy would call GENSER or General Service classified information; generally Secret or below.

Whether she blew off her annual training, I don’t know. She wouldn’t have signed new NDAs every year; the annual training is logged differently. But had she blown off her annual training that wouldn’t be a mitigating factor in any judicial procedure, but rather an aggravating one. Effectively it would demonstrate intent (this case was dripping with intent); an attempt to establish an alibi for herself. For her “But I didn’t know” defense. That only works as long as she was able to keep everything in the realm of the political.

She had set up her server before signing those documents, which demonstrated that she didn’t intend to comply with the laws governing the handling and transmitting of classified information from day one. All foreign government information is classified at least at the confidential level (Saucier spent a year in prison for six confidential/restricted photos). A Secretary of State sends and receives confidential information on a daily basis. She was violating the terms of the contract she made with the USG to gain access to classified before her first annual refresher training was required.

All you’d need is the documentation provided above and she couldn’t get away with playing dumb in a court of law. Playing dumb is the first thing people think to do when they’re caught violating the espionage act. So we keep the documentation and that trumps any play acting they may try to get away with. Which is exactly what a judge would tell any jury.

Only Comey would let Clinton get away with the dumb blond act. He deliberately downgraded her crimes, as if they only rose to the level of gross negligence. That allowed him to question the constitutionality of the gross negligence standard, and to claim that the DoJ would have been treating her differently if they charged her.

But it would have been just as easy, easier in fact than in most cases, to charge her under either paras (d) or (e) or both considering the sheer volume of classified she unlawfully retained and the fact she unlawfully transmitted the information to unauthorized persons. Despite signing binding contracts in which she acknowledged that she knew all that was illegal. And she began violating those contracts almost before the ink was dry.

Watching Comey’s performance it was clear; Clinton’s defense attorney wrote the charge sheet.

“The incident was a perfectly valid and common practice. It’s called a “non-paper”, and it means to remove classified information, then send it without classified markings. ”

I see you’re being deliberately obtuse, Zachriel. I clearly said she ordered her assistant to remove the markings from a classified document, then send the document on the unclas system. Removing he markings from a classified document and then sending the document on an unclas system is a crime. And it also demonstrates intent.

Just admit it, Zachriel. You wanted Clinton to get away with her crimes so badly you’ll make things up whole cloth to provide her cover. Such as you’re now making up a story that she ordered her assistant to remove the classified information. She wanted to see the classified information. Removing that would have defeated the whole purpose of her illegal system.

Arminius: But Clinton should have been charged under either paras (d) or (e) also.

That would require showing she knew the information was classified. The evidence shows that she used the secure State Department system for the vast majority of classified information, and that none of the classified information on her emails was properly market, indicating that she did not intentionally transmit classified information. The Supereme Court, in Gorin vs. United States, has said that for the Espionage Act to be constitutional, there has to be a finding of “scienter and bad faith”.

Arminius: I clearly said she ordered her assistant to remove the markings from a classified document, then send the document on the unclas system.

Her exact comment was “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” As the State Department confirmed, turning it into a ‘non-paper’ means to remove any classified information and without attribution to allow transmittal over non-secure channels. In this case, the information wasn’t even classified, but a set of talking points for her meeting with a foreign representative. The Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual defines non-paper as follows:

A written summary of a demarche or other verbal presentation to a foreign government. The non-paper should be drafted in the third person, and must not be directly attributable to the U.S. Government. It is prepared on plain paper (no letterhead or watermark). The heading or title, if any, is simply a statement of the issue or subject.

Arminius: She wanted to see the classified information. Removing that would have defeated the whole purpose of her illegal system.

She could always see the information regardless of her email system. They were just having troubles with the secure fax. Your claim is nonsensical.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend