Did the FBI make the right call on Clinton's negligence with classified information?

Here is the case in a nutshell. HRC purposely set up a private server, because she did not want anything in the future to come back a bit her in the butt. She did not expect to be caught and she purposely tried to delete all evidence that may have be incriminating. She lied about it, and got off scott free because the Democrats controll the DOJ and I am sure put so much pressure on the FBI so it would cave as well. She is guilty, this was not neglect it was willful and purposefull.

Once again folks. Hillary Rob'em Clintoon by setting up a private server and then wiping it clean violated the law. She knew that her e- mails were part of the official record as her time as SOS. By deleting the e- mails on her own or by her staff how do we know that she is telling the truth about not deleting official e- mails. Truth is we do not know. But she has been so forth coming up till now:) Also she did lie about having sent e- mails that were classified. According to the FBI there were 52 e- mail chains and 110 e- mail sent in those chains that had classified material in them. She has consistently said that she sent no classified e- mails. This sound to me like a lie, how about you? Also what about her staff? If they transmitted the same e- mails are they not guilty also? Everyone has a duty to protect this information right? And how about Hillary telling the public that the video was why the embassy was attacked? Then this lady who wants to be the COC tells her daughter a few hours later that it was terrorist that attacked the embassy. I wonder was that classified info to? Does the first daughter also have a security clearance or did Hillary once again violate the law. The last time I have seen a person this crooked a house fell on her sister in a movie.

She had a good teacher about lying, her husband.

MSG Jay Jackson - I have heard some varying rumors that the information that was emailed was classified after they were sent. Do you if this is the case? Either way, if a president receives classified briefings and she has mishandled sensitive information she should not be allowed to be president. Any other peron would have their clearance revoked. Malicious intent or not. She is a security risk.

Capt Michael Greene - Captain Green, if your elected position requires clearance, the people classifying the information can sanitize it to the level that even a president not trustworthy enough to get say TS SCI but could get a secret clearance or even confidential (which has happened at least twice in presidential history) the sanitized versions would give the president enough information to make a decision. IN limited instances even those Presidents had to get a one time bump to understand the full ramifications of the briefing that they were given, and it was revoked right after.

Your argument about being elected gives them access is clearly misguided, as there have been several presidents who have not been allowed into places like the NSA, DIA, CIA. where the requirements are TS at a minimum up to the highest levels of SCI or SAP, or that they were only given limited briefings rather than full on briefings, that contained the TS SCI level information.

What many serving members now days in operations type units do not get true SCI take they get watered down, and source redacted information, just enough to do their jobs with only a simple clearance of TS without SCI/SAP access. This is the simple version

Being elected again may qualify someone for access to some information, they still go through the full FBI SCI/SAP background investigations, and determination after that is then when a clearance at TS SCI/SAP is either granted or denied or limited in scope.

To follow that up with, even members of congress don't automatically get clearances, and those who serve in capacities such as the Intelligence oversight committees DO in fact have to get a full TS/SCI/SAP clearance level in order to serve on those types of committees. Once they are vetted by the FBI for their clearance, just like any Federal employee or military person who has to have a clearance they must pass said background investigations before they are allowed access, if they don't pass, they don't get on those committees that require the clearance, they are shuffled off to other committees.

This thread has become filled with assertions presented as fact, but is empty of sources we can refer to. I know that I have seen--in the past--sources for my assertions. So I will take a little time to find those references again.

I was in error about elected officials having to go through the background investigation, they did up until 1991 when President Bush enacted a memorandum that is still used :
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/nsd63.html

But members of congress do take an oath to not reveal any secrets, and there are some members of congress that do have special access to perform their duties, these are scrutinized and behind the scenes the top members can be told that they are a security risk.

non elected officials do have to get the basic background investigation done for the position. SHE was Sec State, that makes her liable for clearance.

Congress just has to say, I wont lie, cheat, or steal, will not divulge secrets and they get a pass.. SMH, not good and explains a lot to me.

Capt Michael Greene - 18 USC, 793(f)

I’ve looked at 18 USC, 793(f) several times. Some of the elements don’t apply, but others do. However, even then, there are some problems:

The paragraph requires the secrets to be “relating to the national defense.” This might or might not apply. In our everyday work, all our stuff is related to defense. But we don’t know exactly what secrets were mishandled by HRC. For instance, if the secrets were about Israel and the PLO, or about oil under the Arctic Ice, or Climate Change in South Africa, or an assassination in Cambodia, does that relate to our national defense? And saying that EVERYTHING relates to defense would negate the argument.

The paragraph also requires gross negligence. Comey didn’t say “gross negligence.” He said “extremely careless.” This might or might not be the same. Some on the right say, like Rudy Guiliani, "If you look at the definition of gross negligence, both in Black's Law Dictionary and in about eight cases, the definition is extreme carelessness.” Guiliani’s words are not literally identical to Black’s, but he might be right anyway. The online edition says: “A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard. Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights are examples. There is no specific legal definition, but if one drives recklessly and kills another, it is applied as involuntary manslaughter.”

The paragraph says the perpetrator needs to “permit the [secret] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to” anyone. This might or might not have occurred. Were the secrets actually taken and actually delivered to someone? We can assume so, but can a prosecutor prove it?

You and I may disagree, but with a team of million dollar lawyers, HRC could keep this tied up in court for the next eight years.

Capt Michael Greene - You are most likely right about HRC having the ability to fight the charges forever. In the end, the FBI probably figured that the fight was not worth the (possible) end result.

Trying any public figure, especially one as well connected as HRC is always a major deal. I would say that she was grossly negligent at best.

Either way, the FBI was put in a difficult position.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/783


Look up RS21900.pdf, page 10 bottom specifies

1924, 798 and 783 apply to what she was charged with protecting, non disclosure and handling of classified material.

So if HRC willfully (which she did) removed from the control of Dept of State communications channels by setting up a separate computer system (eg server) and used emails outside of the controlled communications network she has violated any of the statutes above.