ADVERTISEMENT

Classified material found on Weiner's laptop....how is no one being charged?

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
28,595
7,312
113
Given the standard which has set for the handling of classified information for other people how has no one been charged in this matter?
_____

A federal court on Tuesday released the search warrant documents filed by the FBI to access a laptop used by disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, revealing new details about why the bureau revisited the email case just days before the presidential election.

The FBI’s earlier investigation found “27 email chains containing classified information” that were exchanged between Clinton and Abedin, and investigators wanted to see what was also on the Abedin-Weiner laptop, according to the government affidavit unsealed Tuesday. That laptop, the FBI noted, “was never authorized for the storage or transmission of classified or national defense information,” according to the application for the warrant, which was partially redacted.

The October re-opening of the Clinton investigation sprung from an unrelated case involving Weiner allegedly sexting with an underage girl. During the course of that inquiry, agents discovered the joint laptop and later found emails addressed to and sent from Clinton.

READ THE DOCUMENTS

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel on Monday ordered the warrant and accompanying documents released, which he said were secretly filed with the court on Oct. 30.

In the aftermath of Clinton’s Election Day defeat, many of her top supporters – including husband former President Bill Clinton – have publicly blamed FBI Director James Comey for her loss.

“James Comey cost her the election,” Bill Clinton said earlier this month during remarks which were recently published in the Bedford-Pound Ridge Record Review.

Just days after President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, Hillary Clinton also took Comey to task. “Our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum,” Clinton said during a Nov. 12 conference call with donors.

Comey was criticized not just for revisiting the case but for announcing that decision, in an Oct. 28 letter to Congress, only to confirm two days before the Nov. 8 vote that the inquiry uncovered no new evidence of wrongdoing.

The unsealed search warrant files, however, may help explain why Comey decided to revive the Clinton investigation despite the pending election.

“Out of the 27 email chains, six email chains contained information that was classified as the Secret level at the time the emails were sent, and information in four of those email chains remains classified at that level now,” the application stated.

Agents also were looking “to determine if classified information was accessed by unauthorized users or transferred to any unauthorized systems.”

The affidavit clearly states that the warrant relates to a “criminal investigation” of Clinton, terminology Clinton’s team previously had disputed.
 
Here's what I wondered at the time . Comey said that there was nothing new. But was that the most important fact? The question should have been if there was classified material where it did not belong. The FBI hurt her but then smoothed it over.
 
Agree. The actual info in those classified emails wasn't really the story. The fact that there made their way to someone without clearance is the crime. As I said above, based on other similar precendents, how has no one been charged?
 
At this point I've given up on complaining about it. The standard for gross negligence is different for connected politicians and that's just how it is.
 
"Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for classified State Department emails made her unfit for high office. But that isn’t stopping him from considering David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to knowingly leaking secret government files — and lying to the feds about it — for secretary of state."

Unproven negligence vs. knowingly sending classified emails to your mistress.
 
Last edited:
Realistically both he and Hillary should face criminal charges .And I'm not sure what was unproven about her negligence.The negligence was proven her intention to do harm was unproven but you could say the same about his . They both did the same thing and both should be charged as in fact he was . What Trump did after-the-fact is undeniable .
 
Unproven negligence? Her classified emails were on a civilian's laptop. That alone has been plenty to charge numerous military personnel with federal charges. A civilian who was sexting minors btw.

Dems who voted for Clinton to now object to Petraeus for being considered for SOS is the definition of hypocrisy. For the record, I believe Petraeus actions disqualify him for SOS.
 
Last edited:
Lawpoke makes a good point . It was in the hands of someone who was already facing criminal charges . That's the very reason that they have security checks because those facing criminal problems are more likely to be blackmailed into giving away information .
 
Look....I don't want Petraeus anywhere near classified information. My issue is with the Dems who wanted to give Clinton the highest security access of anyone in this country to now have issues with Patraeus as SOS

H Y P O C R A C Y .
 
Last edited:
The same? Not exactly.

Intent? Cover up? Evasiveness? Defiance(blame others) vs accepting responsibility.
 
By the way the question is moot since Petraeus didn't get any job at all.
 
By the way the question is moot since Petraeus didn't get any job at all.

Hardly, clearly the conviction did not prevent him from being a finalist nor does it change the facts.

Why is it that HRC is the only example some use when there are other worse abuses even under the Bush administration? Rove for example.

It's hard to believe that there is real concern about this issue when posters only use it to be critical of HRC and dismiss the issue if it taints people they support.
 
Last edited:
Let me try to answer something . Why is it that both sides tried to point out something that The Other Side did as if it excuses what their side did. Karl Rove isn't Running for president. if Hillary or Donald has faults, it in no way lessons the faults of the other . I'm sure you've heard this before but in my opinion neither of the two candidates were qualified to be the President of the United States . I have seen nothing since the election that makes me think that I was wrong about either one . Donald cannot stay off Twitter long enough to explain what he said on Twitter yesterday and Hillary said the election was over and we should all work together and then began contributing to recounts and trying to get electors to switch votes .
 
Hardly, clearly the conviction did not prevent him from being a finalist nor does it change the facts.

Why is it that HRC is the only example some use when there are other worse abuses even under the Bush administration? Rove for example.

It's hard to believe that there is real concern about this issue when posters only use it to be critical of HRC and dismiss the issue if it taints HRC?
Did the media give GWB a pass on it? I must have missed that one.
 
Back to the original question, if classified material entrusted to a colonial end up in the possession of a criminal who is the colonial's best friends girlfriend, is there anyway the colonial isn't charged?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT