So the Clinton machine is out in full force, claiming that the FBI found Clinton to be innocent. They like to boil everything down to a simple case of guilty or "hogwash"; spinning the truth is what they do. Their claims are lies, of course. Comey did not find Clinton to be innocent; no, what he actually did was find America's system of Justice to be guilty. Let me repeat that: Comey actually pronounced America's system of Justice to have a deeply engrained double-standard that allows the elite class to escape prosecution, and because of that double-standard, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton. Comey spoke with a straight face, without any hint of awkwardness or hesitation; his words had been crafted so carefully that most of us didn't even realize the meaning of what he was actually saying: "Yes Virginia, some 'men' are above the law." And in a huge win for feminism, I guess, the very first 'man' who was ever shown to be above the law was actually a woman. Hillary Clinton, you go girl!

Clinton is not innocent. Comey and the FBI found Clinton and her aides to have been “extremely careless” when handling classified information. Holy Private Key Batman! Extremely careless with classified information. That there is one serious black mark that is now and forever part of Clinton's permanent record. And if Madame Secretary manages to become Madame President, in an age where the top foreign policy risk to our country is deemed to be terrorism, she will reign in an administration for which the intelligence community has utter contempt. Clinton operated in a way that shows very little understanding or respect for the work that they do. She has rendered obsolete work that has most likely taken years and years to accomplish, and as a result, significantly added to their workload. One might even say she has made our country "less safe". Some (and by some, I actually mean many if not most) in that community are a tad peeved by her actions.

NSA Whistleblower: Clinton Emails Damaged U.S. National Security Much More than Manning, Assange Or Any Other Whistleblower

But the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ... explains why Comey's statement is nonsense. By way of background, recall that – when the American press reported that U.S. intelligence services tracked Bin Laden through his satellite phone – he stopping using that type of phone … so we could no longer easily track him. This is exactly what government officials mean whenever they say that someone – say Edward Snowden, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, or Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning – is threatening national security by “revealing confidential information-gathering methods or sources.”

I want to pause for a moment and check to make sure that we are all on the same page. What is being said here? Which is worse?

A certain important factoid is shared with the enemy The enemy learns that their "information-gathering methods or sources” have been compromised.

Isn't option 2 the correct answer? The most damage is caused when the enemy learns that their "information-gathering methods or sources” have been compromised. And that makes sense, right? Doesn't option 2 affect a huge number of factoids, instead of just one or two? Ok, let's continue ...

Binney explained to Washington’s Blog the serious nature of Clinton’s breach of GAMMA classified information: The compromise of this kind of cryptology success has a number of impacts on the ability of NSA to produce accurate intelligence on foreign targets of highest interest. (1) This lets the leaders of a foreign country know that their communications have been compromised and that we read what they are saying, planning and intending to do. (2) It compromises the fact that a particular type of encryption is readable. Not just the leadership; but, also all the others in that country and around the world that are using that encryption. [...] (4) If other countries (like Russia or China or any others) know the encryption system involved, then they too will look at it for any weakness or flaws that would allow reading the system. [...] (6) This presents the country using that system the opportunity to feed false information into the intelligence produced by NSA which means the free world. (7) For NSA, this means that they have to find other ways to validate any intelligence they get from this encryption to insure the validity of the information they get.

Takeaways:

Discussing classified information on unclassified channels allows hostile players to "know what we know" about them. As a result, they will change their plays so as to better defend themselves. Discussing classified information on unclassified channels is a bad idea, in fact it is such a fucking bad idea that laws have been passed to make such activity "subject to sanctions". For us working shmucks, that is.

allows hostile players to "know what we know" about them. As a result, they will change their plays so as to better defend themselves. Discussing classified information on unclassified channels is a bad idea, in fact it is to make such activity "subject to sanctions". For us working shmucks, that is. Hostiles won't use the old channels any more . All the previous work (perhaps even lives lost?) that went into discovering how to tap into the old communication channels used by hostiles has been rendered obsolete. Hostiles may continue to use the old channels in an attempt to spread misinformation. Anything that comes across old channels now still needs to be checked, but with an extra dimension (i.e. "they know that we know what they are saying, so why are they saying it?")

. All the previous work (perhaps even lives lost?) that went into discovering how to tap into the old communication channels used by hostiles has been rendered obsolete. Hostiles may continue to use the old channels in an attempt to spread misinformation. Anything that comes across old channels now still needs to be checked, but with an extra dimension (i.e. "they know that we know what they are saying, so why are they saying it?") Hostiles will attempt to use new channels; hence a giant task has now been added to the intelligence community's ToDo list.

Ex-special ops group blasts Clinton email decision

A group of former special operations forces and CIA officials critical of the Obama administration blasted the FBI's announcement earlier this week that it would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server. The president of the group, known as OPSEC, expressed disappointment with FBI Director James Comey's conclusion that despite Clinton and her colleagues being "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. "I had a great deal of respect for Director Comey. This is not what I expected. I don't feel that justice was done," said OPSEC's Jamie Williamson, a retired member of U.S. Army Special Forces. "I know if I had done a fraction of the things that Mrs. Clinton did, we wouldn't be talking now because I would be sitting in jail many months ago," he told The Hill.

SLOW DOWN PLEASE ... WHAT DID COMEY SAY, EXACTLY?

Comey made it a point to say that if the exact same case had been brought before the FBI involving a different person, the outcome would likely been different.

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.

Let's look at it in slow motion:

In similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity [is] often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

What do these words mean? . Don't they say: if the person was not Hillary Clinton, if the person was Steve or Jose or Juan or somebody else, then the consequences would been different for the exact same actions.

In other words, a different "punishment" would have been handed down for the exact same "crime".

If the person was Steve or Jose or Juan or you or me, they most likely would have been “subject to security or administrative sanctions” for doing exactly what Hillary did. Such sanctions might include losing one’s security clearance, paying a fine, and being placed on leave or terminated. But the person in this case is Hillary Clinton, and for that reason

“that is not what we are deciding now.”

Listen to Comey’s words once more in the following short (17 second) clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZIrCQuMU7A

Hillary got a different kind of Justice than Steve or Jose or Juan or you and I would receive. She got a kinder, gentler form of Justice. And that in itself is tremendously wrong. Not because she was treated with kindness, but because America’s laws are supposed to be the same for all of us, regardless of shape, color, or size. The same yardstick is supposed be used for every single citizen. That's how the myth goes, right? If Hillary’s lack of intent results in no indictment for Hillary, then Juan’s lack of intent should result in no indictment for Juan. According to John V. Berry, such is not the case. Berry is a lawyer who specializes in security clearances; his opinion is that “Hillary Clinton got off easy”:

My legal practice involves representing clients denied or at risk of losing their security clearances. Facing the same set of facts outlined by FBI Director James B. Comey about Hillary Clinton and her aides, my less-well-known clients — whether an entry-level government contractor or a GS-14 federal employee — would be in serious jeopardy of losing their security clearances. In fact, I cannot foresee a situation in which an ordinary employee facing such allegations would be able to keep a security clearance with the types of concerns raised in the FBI findings. [...] Clinton’s use of a personal server for classified government email, without appropriate approvals and security, would normally be treated as a serious security violation. Another security violation would be the storage and transmission of classified materials using personal (nongovernmental) means off site. Everyone involved in the setting up of the server, the transmission or storage of such information or knowledge of same would have had separate security obligations to follow regarding the rules for protecting classified information. Finally, providing classified information to defense lawyers who are not cleared to review such documents (as was alleged to have occurred) could also constitute a security violation for a regular employee.

According to Berry, lack of intent to cause harm is not a factor that weighs heavily in the outcome of many cases:

Consider the government contractor who comes to my office to see me based on allegations that she accidentally took home a personal hard drive containing low-level classified information. Even if the information at issue was not important, it is not uncommon for such an individual to lose her security clearance, be placed on leave and then terminated. This outcome varies, based on the facts of an individual case, but the risk is significant. Other common clearance cases involve government contractors or federal employees who accidentally email classified information to their homes and then face the serious risk of losing their security clearances.

What our entire country has just witnessed with Clinton's case is that there are in fact two sets of laws in this country: one for the rich and powerful, and another for the rest of us. Which some of us have suspected for quite a long time, but with Comey's statement we have actual evidence of it.

FBI's Clinton decision proves rules don't apply to rich and powerful

As I sat in my law office watching CNN's coverage of FBI Director James Comey's statement, where he outlined his department's much-awaited decision regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal and all but concluded that Clinton had broken the law but would not be indicted, his words merely confirmed what I have always known as a former prosecutor and a current criminal defense attorney: Our nation maintains a separate and unequal criminal justice system that is stratified according to wealth and power.

Again, Comey did not find Clinton to be innocent! No, he actually pronounced America's system of Justice to have a deeply engrained double-standard that allows the elite class to escape prosecution, and because of that double-standard, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton.

"Yes Virginia, some 'men' are above the law." And some women too.

And that is why we fucking need Bernie Sanders to become president. Because FUCK THIS SHIT!

Additional Reading

FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn’t Prosecute The Rich And Powerful

The Rich Are Different From You and Me: They Don’t Care About Jobs and Their Money Buys Politicians