NSA leaker gets massive sentence

[T. A. Gardner]

Reality Winner (who would name their kid that, really? ) got a five year sentence, the longest ever imposed, for leaking documents related to the Russian hacking of US elections. Hillary got nada for a massive leak called her e-mail server.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reality...ied-documents/

[pamak]

Reality Winner (who would name their kid that, really? ) got a five year sentence, the longest ever imposed, for leaking documents related to the Russian hacking of US elections. Hillary got nada for a massive leak called her e-mail server.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reality...ied-documents/

This was because the prosecutors here could show intent to leak classified information. In Clinton's case there as not such issue...

[T. A. Gardner]

This was because the prosecutors here could show intent to leak classified information. In Clinton's case there as not such issue...

Intent is shown in the Clinton case by her using a private server. That alone demonstrates it as by doing so she knowingly circumvented ALL federal regulations on electronic communications, particularly for someone so high up in the executive service.

[pamak]

Intent is shown in the Clinton case by her using a private server. That alone demonstrates it as by doing so she knowingly circumvented ALL federal regulations on electronic communications, particularly for someone so high up in the executive service.

The intent we are talking is about leaking classified information! Using a private server does not automatically show intent to leak classified information.

[wolfhnd]

Clinton's intent was clearly to obscure the record which is why whistleblowers are so important.

In this case I'm not sure what she hoped to accomplish but the American people need a complete picture of the history of Russian hacking. Precisely because the Obama administration was obscure and over zealous in prosecuting whistleblowers and the fake news outlets such as CNN offer no historical perspective.

The real story is what the lame stream media is calling conspiracy. The following is an email I received from my father-in-law, a long time democratic.

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

A Grand Jury had been empanelled.

Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.

Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared.

Hmmm, now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.

Guess who took over this investigation in 2002?

Bet you can’t guess.

None other than James Comey.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS?

Your friend and mine, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?

No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame?

I know, it’s a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances, but it was Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common?

They all were briefed and/or were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

Now that’s just a coincidence, right?

Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.

Let’s fast forward to 2009......

James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server by the way.

The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary.

Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, the People got absolutely nothing out of it.

However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one hour speech then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Ok, no big deal right?

Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame?

Yep, Robert Mueller.

He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.

Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland?

None other than, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess what happened to the informant?

The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved?

~145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?

No other than, Lois Lerner.

Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right?

Let’s fast forward to 2015.

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.

He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law.

He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email.

Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013?

Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer?

No other than James Comey.

Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?

Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email Investigation” after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner “Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her.

Nope.... couldn’t find any crimes there.

Can you guess what happened next?

In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy.

They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury.

Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016, and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing.

Can you see the pattern?

It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.

FISA Abuse, political espionage.... pick a crime, any crime, chances are.... this group and a few others did it.

All the same players.

All compromised and conflicted.

All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves.

All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's.

They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch.

How many lives have these two destroyed?

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.

And,
See the person that is the common denominator to all the crimes above and still doing her evil escape legal maneuvers at the top of the 3 Letter USA Agencies? Yep, that would be Hillary R. Clinton.


WHO IS LISA BARSOOMIAN?

Let’s learn a little about Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian’s background.

Lisa H. Barsoomian, a US Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law, is a protege of James Comey and Robert Mueller.

Barsoomian, with her boss R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998.

Lawrence also represented:

Robert Mueller three times;

James Comey five times;

Barack Obama 45 times;

Kathleen Sebelius 56 times;

Bill Clinton 40 times; and

Hillary Clinton 17 times.

Between 1998 and 2017, Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.

You may be saying to yourself, OK, who cares? Who cares about the

work history of this Barsoomian woman?

Apparently someone does, because someone out there cares so much

that they’ve “purged” all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton

representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999

from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets (?). Someone out there

cares so much that the internet has been “purged” of all information

pertaining to Barsoomian.

Historically, this indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative.

Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of

Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community.

And, although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases

representing the DC Office of the US Attorney, her email address is

Lisa Barsoomian at NIH gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of

Health.

This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an operative by

using another government organization to shield their activities.

It’s a cover, so big deal right? I mean what does one more attorney

with ties to the US intelligence community really matter?
It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and

aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of

California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump,

the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions

recusal and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the

marijuana legalization mix …. and last but not least Mueller’s

never-ending investigation into collusion between the Trump team and

the Russians.

Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention?


BECAUSE….

She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s WIFE….That’s why!!

GET THIS INFORMATION OUT TO EVERYONE YOU CAN.

[T. A. Gardner]

The intent we are talking is about leaking classified information! Using a private server does not automatically show intent to leak classified information.

Intent is not necessary as many other cases prove.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2652586

I remember a sailor on the Enterprise getting convicted for taking a reactor plant manual (RPM) home to study for qualification. He showed it to no one, and only wanted to qualify to do his job. Removing classified information was sufficient for a charge.

In Hillary's case there were lots of classified documents found on her server. She didn't notify any government official about it. That means she compromised classified material and had it in her possession outside of areas she was legally allowed to have it.
We also know that Hillary gave thumb drives to several other people, including one of her lawyers, who had classified information in his possession as a result of that. That too was illegal and Hillary knowingly did it.

It is simple. Hillary broke numerous federal laws and regulations regarding classified and sensitive material and she is clearly guilty of that. She should have been tried, convicted, and sent to prison. No, if's, and's, or but's about it.

[pamak]

Intent is not necessary as many other cases prove.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2652586

I remember a sailor on the Enterprise getting convicted for taking a reactor plant manual (RPM) home to study for qualification. He showed it to no one, and only wanted to qualify to do his job. Removing classified information was sufficient for a charge.

In Hillary's case there were lots of classified documents found on her server. She didn't notify any government official about it. That means she compromised classified material and had it in her possession outside of areas she was legally allowed to have it.
We also know that Hillary gave thumb drives to several other people, including one of her lawyers, who had classified information in his possession as a result of that. That too was illegal and Hillary knowingly did it.

It is simple. Hillary broke numerous federal laws and regulations regarding classified and sensitive material and she is clearly guilty of that. She should have been tried, convicted, and sent to prison. No, if's, and's, or but's about it.

Well, here we have a case of intent which is the point I make. It cannot be compared to Clinton's case!

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, here we have a case of intent which is the point I make. It cannot be compared to Clinton's case!

[Trung Si]

spiracy

Well, here we have a case of intent which is the point I make. It cannot be compared to Clinton's case!

Yes it can, in the Clinton e-mail case there was no Appetite to prove Intent by anyone, I am certainly not a conspiracy fan, but I am smart enough to tell which way the wind is blowing when I go outside, and Google who the FBI agent in charge of the Clinton E-mail investigation was and then tell me how unbiased Google is, it may surprise you, you'll get every answer with the exception of what you asked.

[pamak]

spiracy


Yes it can, in the Clinton e-mail case there was no Appetite to prove Intent by anyone, I am certainly not a conspiracy fan, but I am smart enough to tell which way the wind is blowing when I go outside, and Google who the FBI agent in charge of the Clinton E-mail investigation was and then tell me how unbiased Google is, it may surprise you, you'll get every answer with the exception of what you asked.

What part of my argument you do not get? I said clearly that here we have a person with a clear intent (and admission) that she wanted to leak classified information. It contacted journalists to make it public! This is much different compared to the Clinton's case when the object of having a private server was to avoid scrutiny and not to leak classified information!

Here, if there is an issue to argue is if such person should have been treated as a whistleblower...

[Arnold J Rimmer]

spiracy


Yes it can, in the Clinton e-mail case there was no Appetite to prove Intent by anyone, I am certainly not a conspiracy fan, but I am smart enough to tell which way the wind is blowing when I go outside, and Google who the FBI agent in charge of the Clinton E-mail investigation was and then tell me how unbiased Google is, it may surprise you, you'll get every answer with the exception of what you asked.

The sad thing is, you need to show at least one of: intent, reckless disregard, or criminal neglect.

So saying you can't prove one of the three is just political doublespeak. Store classified material outside of prescribed venues easily fills the stands of either reckless disregard or criminal neglect.

[pamak]

The sad thing is, you need to show at least one of: intent, reckless disregard, or criminal neglect.

So saying you can't prove one of the three is just political doublespeak. Store classified material outside of prescribed venues easily fills the stands of either reckless disregard or criminal neglect.

We have discussed this in a different thread where we explained the high bar the prosecutors had to meet to charge Clinton

https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...61#post5049861

Of course, the people who do not follow such discussions because of their ignore list, remain ignorant of such inconvenient details. In any case, the point in this thread is that since we had a person who contacted a journalist, it was easy to show intent to leak classified information! So, trying to compare this case to Clinton's is political hogwash.

[Mountain Man]

Reality Winner (who would name their kid that, really? ) got a five year sentence, the longest ever imposed, for leaking documents related to the Russian hacking of US elections. Hillary got nada for a massive leak called her e-mail server.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reality...ied-documents/

Welcome to justice, government style.

[Mountain Man]

We have discussed this in a different thread where we explained the high bar the prosecutors had to meet to charge Clinton

https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...61#post5049861

Of course, the people who do not follow such discussions because of their ignore list, remain ignorant of such inconvenient details. In any case, the point in this thread is that since we had a person who contacted a journalist, it was easy to show intent to leak classified information! So, trying to compare this case to Clinton's is political hogwash.

Because you say so? Because your version doesn't match any facts that I've seen, and if you still don;t realize that politicians don't obey the same laws as the rest of us, tel us what drug your taking, because I want some, too.

[Cambronnne]

Intent is shown in the Clinton case by her using a private server. That alone demonstrates it as by doing so she knowingly circumvented ALL federal regulations on electronic communications, particularly for someone so high up in the executive service.

You are right.
Also the statute in question does not require proof of "intent". Only "gross negligence".
"Gross negligence" isn't the same thing as an intentional act. It is a step below it.

But you are also right that intent probably could have been proven by that evidence.
Her acts in setting up the server were clearly intentional, and the fact that she arranged it to circumvent the government system would constitute evidence of intent.