case filed: Nov 6 2017



PDF backup


shrt lnk: https://wp.me/p5eLCS-sS




……… hovering over target by sucking in the fragments of unintended offerings……….


“Homicide victim Seth Conrad Rich,   July 10, 2016          4:19AM”


June 20th 2017  Independent group releases new report on Seth Rich murder investigation in press conference here  – A group of George Washington University graduate students calling themselves the Profiling Project released a report on their own investigation.  Lobbyist and Profiling Project Founder Jack Burkman says “he has evidence that links the murder of a Democratic National Committee staffer to Russian operatives” and donates $105,000 to the cause.

….and with that statement from here on out the so-called investigation acquires the appearance of a coverup of a coverup.

WND asked 125 members of Congress to weigh in on the unsolved murder, but not a single U.S. representative has agreed to address the case.

The head of a private investigative team in Washington, D.C., insists that Metropolitan Police Department officials have been instructed by Mayor Muriel Bowser to withhold evidence pertaining to Rich’s case from the public and obstruct the investigation for political purposes.

Seth-Rich-petition – Tens of thousands of Americans have signed a White House petition calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the case. The petition, which was created May 19.

WND reported, a manager at Lou’s City Bar, the last known location where Rich was seen before his murder, claims police never interviewed the bar’s staff or requested evidence, such as footage from security cameras. And police never questioned Rich’s DNC co-workers.

Burkman, revealed that a burglar broke into an FBI vehicle and stole weapons – including a .40 caliber Glock-22 handgun and a Rock River Arms Rifle – hours before Rich was shot multiple times just two miles north of the weapons theft. Burkman has filed a lawsuit May 31 in the District of Columbia Superior Courts uing the MPD for ballistics reports that would indicate whether the two crimes are in any way connected.

Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up.

New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington Post, have worked overtime to bury the story, eagerly slamming theories that Rich may have leaked DNC emails as “fake news” and “conspiracy.”

WND reported, only five lawmakers replied to WND’s interview requests submitted to 125 members of Congress. All of those five declined to address the issue.

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah: “Why are the media so stridently incurious? Don’t they want to solve the murder by following standard investigatory protocols and by investigating all the possibilities? Why should this murder case be handled differently than every other murder case? Why are the reporters and news organizations and private investigators who ask questions about the lack of progress in the case vilified as ‘conspiracy theorists’?”

The total reward for solving Seth Rich’s murder currently stands at $350,000. One America News is offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Rich’s killer. WikiLeaks is pitching in $20,000, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is offering $25,000, Burkman kicked in another $105,000, and businessman and investor Martin Shkreli is offering $100,000.

MedStar Washington Hospital Center, is now back in the news. What hospital admitted and treated the DNC staffer before a physician pronounced him dead? Emergency responders, along with police and two local hospitals, are refusing to answer that basic question.  Investigative reporter Scott Taylor says D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has denied his Freedom of Information Act Request for Rich’s autopsy report.

June 12 2017 – Eyewitness: ‘I was there when Seth Rich was shot, they walked him past me, he didn’t even know he was shot, no pain’ A man claiming to be Mark Mueller, Seth Rich’s neighbor, who may also be going by the alias Scott Roberts, was at the scene when Rich was shot on July 10, 2016, and was listed in the police report.

Profiling Project Founder Jack Burkman: “Seth Rich’s Twitter account has recently been deleted. Seth Rich’s Facebook page has recently been deleted and Seth Rich’s Reddit account (MeGRIMLOCK) has recently been edited and some of its postings deleted,”

ANON Whistleblower to SOTN  http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=75906

Seth Rich was a MOSSAD operative. Whether his family is certified Sayanim or whether he was a card-carrying agent is not really important.  He spent plenty of time in Israel, even training under the command of the IDF.   Seth Rich’s Israeli Military Experience (Video)

The reason why he was ‘killed’ at 4:20 AM is the same reason they carry out so many false flags at night.  No one’s around—duh!

The MOSSAD controllers of this black op had the whole street locked down since Seth left the bar at 1:30 in the morning.  None of the crime scene facts could be proven, except by the people planted around before and after who have spoken publicly.  That includes your medical resident at Washington Hospital Center who you quoted.

Do you now see how this whole psyop was set up. It’s a total joke…on the Clintons, of course. And the DNC.  And the Democratic Party. Talk about a skunk at their garden party right in D.C. The MOSSAD infiltrated their campaign with a Sayanim contractor — Seth Rich — who’s now probably living on a kibbutz somewhere in the Negev desert—at a locked-down oasis community after having LOTs of plastic surgery. Look it, this op took Hillary right out of the race.
The Alt Right swallowed it–hook, line and sinker– and did just that—they sunk her.  One more
murder was all they really needed on her rap sheet to motivate the borderline Trumpsters to get out and vote.

Here’s a LiveLeak video from someone who’s done his homework.  Why don’t you guys do some more penance and post it so the Internet knows the truth.
Seth Rich Murder Hoax (Video)

What came to my mind: why so sloppy with so many very untidy ends? We all have seen how it can be done with less mistakes. No time? No funds? Different team? On purpose? Like a cut stone, I rearrange the spotlights and view the alternately illuminated facets of the shiny object that is Seth Rich.

Chaos is helpful in my opinion. It reveals the crack that is in everything. Chaos welcome. Will the story go away? The story has forked. One path leads around and around and around.

comment from JS. Seth Rich a Mossad plant?
There is gross stupidity circulating the web about Seth Rich never dying and being a Mossad plant. Someone actually thought that kind of spew would work to bail out the Democrats and take the heat off the Hillary murder machine, because people hate the Mossad and they do everything bad and are in my mattress and my oil pan and are digging a tunnel under the driveway but I am going to have to break the concrete to catch them . . . . . . I know they are bad, and therefore if you believe Seth Rich was Mossad, well, good for you.

comment by Ted: I will say that article and Jim’s comment make sense. For the effect was to make me pause and suspend all belief to evaluate from what little I know of the facts. My reaction to the “Rich is mossad” had the intended effect as Jim claimed. I’m all very confused and that is the outcome that is desired outcome of the propaganda; this latter fact, I am sure about. The official story is being told by a magician. But magicians are only effective if they are able to distract just long enough for you not to notice the sleight of hand. I have no doubt that a sleight of hand occurred in the Seth Rich story, yet I am certain there are far more than one distraction being played simultaneously, so that consensus by many people can never be reached and the trick will be completed without disruption.

comment by Maxine: As I understand it The Profile Project: the public was invited to send in their information about the murder of Seth Rich. This was a means of gathering information about who knew what, to find out if perchance, there was someone out there who really had found a smoking gun that they didn’t know about. Then, just as the Warren Commission did, to pick and choose which pieces of info could be allowed and played up, and other pieces which were to be eliminated, deleted, and submerged. And to create something of a fall-back-on voice of authority in case one is needed. 45 pages later, the Profile Project released its findings, detailing absolutely nothing we didn’t know before.

This was an exceedingly slick presentation appealing to a different segment of potential on-line researchers, who got led around and around the mulberry bush.   Ok then.   How to deal with the old battle hardened hardcore conspiracy theorists (us) who wouldn’t buy the glossy bullshit?
Smack them between the eyes with what at least half of them were previously trained to recognize as the Usual Suspects.  “Aha! Bingo!  I knew it all the time!”  This explanation will be accepted by at least 50%, because it is a familiar comfort zone, and lines up with previous beliefs. At which point, these ones gain a certain satisfaction, but also loose interest, and become ready to move on.
That leaves a much smaller number, such as you and I — these remaining ones, as Ted observed, then likely suddenly encounter confusion — which is chaos.  Chaos engenders fatigue, mental numbing, and irritation.  One likely result of chaos is loss of interest.  “Ok, screw it, then.  I’m done. To hell with it,  who cares anyway.”  Will the story go away?  Or not?  We will see.
A lot of trouble has been gone to here, to facilitate multiple sleuth-ways.

LINKS: #SethRich COMPLETE TIMELINE – All the facts in one place (self.The_Donald) and sethrich.info first post Jul 8, 2016

Vanity Fair seeds “shoot the panda” January 2016Private investigator Rod Wheeler has stated that there’s evidence that Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to his death.

@KimDotcom 12:01 PM – 19 May 2017

To all @Google admins, Submit #SethRich acc contents to @Wikileaks: Seth.c.rich@gmail.com, Panda4Progress@gmail.com, Pandas4Bernie@gmail.com

Crowdstrikewww.crowdstrike.com/george-kurtz/ ……………………..rebuttal…………………………..

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/126922003The acting spokesperson for the Rich family, Brad Bauman, is connected to Democratic propaganda czar David Brock. 

Bauman runs the Bauman Foundation, the Board of Directors includes David Brock, founder of multiple DNC-affiliated propaganda outlets including Media Matters, Correct the Record and Shareblue.

May 23 Twitter has permanently banned my account over the story. Why is everyone so desperate to hide the truth?

Twitter just locked media for 12 hours over reporting on


………………………..meanwhile at Crowdstrike June 7 2016


……………………. SEIU


The Freedom Foundation filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the State of Washington from enforcing Initiative 1501—SEIU’s $2 million initiative to create a monopoly on communicating with workers.

The initiative violates the First Amendment because it makes it impossible for union members and the Freedom Foundation to communicate with other union members.


SEIU people and organizations:




Info on the SEIU (who Brad Bauman worked for in the past):

>top democrat spender https://archive.is/AL3MZ >openly endorsed clinton https://archive.is/5Vqka

>actively ran programs for her https://archive.is/of7EF  >tons of embezzlement etc https://archive.is/8kxNi https://archive.is/rgHgv >https://archive.is/AL3MZ

“The presidential election is our number one priority this year,” SEIU political director Brandon Davis said in a recent interview.

>exploited children https://archive.is/vGxrr

>robert cramer is also tied to them via the strategic consulting group https://archive.is/r9AXi https://archive.is/b10PG

Everyone in the DC chapter of the SEIU (SEIU 722) got a pay increase on July 10, 2016 (date Rich was killed). Everyone got a bonus too: https://seiu722.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/160713salary-increase-mwhc.pdf

SEIU held a Contract Ratification Meeting for the contract they were renegotiating with Medstar just days before Rich’s death  >WHEN: Friday, July 1, 2016 >WHERE: Auditorium CNMC >TIME(s): 7:00am – 9:30am >11:00am – 2:00pm >3:00pm – 7:00pm https://seiu722.org/contract-ratification-meeting-notice/

related: https://seiu722.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/May-2016-Bottomline.pdf

>they met two days after Rich died as well https://archive.is/gLZOM

Reminder that Heather Podesta sits on the board of the DC Police Foundation https://archive.is/hfgT3

And the firm that sent the cease and desist letter to Wheeler has ties to the Whitewater scandal and Vince Foster: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-22/dnc-affiliates-increase-involvement-seth-rich-case-after-wheeler-claims

Additional info on the District of Columbia Home Rule Act since the SEIU obviously fucked up the hit and someone was responsible for telling the PD to clean it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Department_of_the_District_of_Columbia

>Under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force for up to 48 hours. During longer periods of time, the President must provide to Congress in writing his reasons for continuing control of the MPD. This control can be extended at any time beyond 30 days if either the emergency continues or if Congress passes a law ordering it.



>Before the Home Rule Act, Congress made all of DC’s laws, and the executive branch ultimately reported to the President of the United States, as if DC were another agency of the federal government (basically, it was). But in 1973, Congress set up our current system of an elected mayor and council. Only they balked at giving DC full autonomy.

Despite the new law, Obama could have claimed an “emergency” and taken control of the DC Police department. Note how that requires the cooperation of the mayor, who openly endorsed Obama in the past: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/loose-lips/blog/13134929/new-bowser-tv-ad-goes-heavy-on-the-lip-sync

Now note how Joe Capone was in this very video and we have records of him attending a sports game in the mayor’s box as well as his trip to the WH.

The SEIU has also endorsed the mayor

shrt lnk: http://wp.me/p5eLCS-re

Recount 2016 Pennsylvania



Web.Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20161129223647*/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ENR_NEW


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

AP seeding malware tag Nov 29 12:56PM EST


SM timestamp PDF file of SM exchanges for trajectory



Hundreds Vote Illegally in North Carolina after Court Bans Election Integrity Law

North Carolina State auditors found that about 500 ineligible people voted in 2016, more than 440 of them felons. Dozens of non-citizens from 28 different countries also cast ballots, the probe found. “A number of non-citizens said they were not aware that they were prohibited from voting,” the report states.  …North Carolina authorities are also investigating 24 substantiated cases of double voting in 2016.


shrt lnk http://wp.me/p5eLCS-lU

“Extremely Careless” Hillary

Hillary Clinton reminds the world that there is no justice in America



18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—


property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

any seizure or disposition of such property; and

any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.

Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

FBI National Press Office – July 05, 2016 

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

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.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails 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 that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. 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.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.


shrt lnk: http://wp.me/p5eLCS-is