Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material
The Associated Press July 29, 2015
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Naval reservist was sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.
An FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.
He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance. (Navy Times)
- I B Hankering
- 07-05-2016, 08:09 PM
.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 07-05-2016, 08:22 PM
Some PIGS are more equal than others!
- i'va biggen
- 07-05-2016, 08:45 PM
Let them eat cake.......
- Yssup Rider
- 07-05-2016, 10:33 PM
Here's something to Pee-on, IBIdiot.
- I B Hankering
- 07-06-2016, 05:13 AM
- nevergaveitathought
- 07-06-2016, 05:56 AM
laws aren't for the peons..they are just for white men
- Yssup Rider
- 07-06-2016, 08:02 AM
She's guilty as hell. Of NO crime!
I wonder why nobody's talking about Trump's rape case.
I wonder why nobody's talking about Trump's rape case.
- I B Hankering
- 07-06-2016, 08:44 AM
She's guilty as hell. Of NO crime!Hildebeest has that in common with Bonnie Parker who was never brought to trial to account for her crimes, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
I wonder why nobody's talking about Trump's rape case. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
- cptjohnstone
- 07-06-2016, 09:49 AM
- andymarksman
- 07-06-2016, 03:52 PM
This Naval reservist, Bryan Nishimura, "admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended."
He's stealing the classified materials, only a would-be spy with evil intent is capable of such despicable acts. And he's not even serving any jail terms. The incident you brought up just completely demolished your own argument against Hillary.
He's stealing the classified materials, only a would-be spy with evil intent is capable of such despicable acts. And he's not even serving any jail terms. The incident you brought up just completely demolished your own argument against Hillary.
- I B Hankering
- 07-06-2016, 04:13 PM
This Naval reservist, Bryan Nishimura, "admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended."Your ignorance is enormous, Andy the Little Nazi Boy; you should be embarrassed.
He's stealing the classified materials, only a would-be spy with evil intent is capable of such despicable acts. And he's not even serving any jail terms. The incident you brought up just completely demolished your own argument against Hillary. Originally Posted by andymarksman
Hildebeest admitted that she set up the personal server; thus, hildebeest "admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto her personal electronic devices which were located off site", Andy the Little Nazi Boy ... and your conniving little bitch didn't return them per laws and regulations until she was under court order to do so. Hence, Andy the Little Nazi Boy, your misinterpretation of facts is completely demolished like Comey demolished all of hildebeest's lies.
BTW, Andy the Little Nazi Boy, do note that the FBI found Nishimura had no "intent" to "share" the documents with unauthorized person or persons, but Nishimura was prosecuted and hildebeest wasn't.
- SpeedRacerXXX
- 07-06-2016, 05:39 PM
This Naval reservist, Bryan Nishimura, "admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended."Don't expect certain others to understand the differences between what Nishimura did and what Clinton did.
He's stealing the classified materials, only a would-be spy with evil intent is capable of such despicable acts. And he's not even serving any jail terms. The incident you brought up just completely demolished your own argument against Hillary. Originally Posted by andymarksman
- I B Hankering
- 07-06-2016, 05:52 PM
Don't expect certain others to understand the differences between what Nishimura did and what Clinton did. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXWhat Clinton did was worse, speedy. Nishimura didn't have any Top Secret Special Access Program documents on his computer, like hildebeest, and Nishimura's computer wasn't hacked by Guccifer -- or any other foreign national, dipshit.
- Yssup Rider
- 07-06-2016, 11:02 PM
Hey IBOla.
IGNORE.
IGNORE.
- ICU 812
- 07-07-2016, 11:00 AM
A lot of unhappiness all around here in this forum and in this thread, regardless of ideology or political affiliation.
I have not felt this universal discontent since the Nixon years.
In 1972, I was just old enough to vote for the first time: Still in college nieve, inexperienced in life and critically evaluating both parties and the candidates. i wanted to make a well informed decision. At that time, all draft deferments had been removed. My status was 1-A and with a low number of 47 in the draft lottery. The Democrats were for pulling out "right now". Nixon was touting "Peace with honor".
Initially, Senator Hubert Humphrey (D Minnasota) seemed to be the reasonable, comfortable candidate, but he spoke in political clichés and platitudes. Soon I preserved him to be a bafoon. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D Minnisota) offered specific plans fto boost jobs and the economy while supporting the poor; good things for all people. He seemed to have a real plan, including a "Reverse Income Tax" a bit like the current earned tax credit. At age 21, that sounded reasonable. But McCarthy's "plan" turned out to be just a bunch of ad-hoc statements that did not add-up. In the end I voted for Nixon, was not drafted and the Vietnam War was over (for us) by the time I graduated in 1973.
Then the Watergate $h!t hit the fan.
Today, most cannot remember the public's collective anxiety as the Watergate scandal evolved day-by-day in the papers and on TV. Feelings of betrayal, dismay, anxiety and anger were experienced by a large section of society when they saw the bald-faced lying that in the end included Nixon as the major player and source of the moral corruption that sought to use ultimate power to retain power. After he resigned, Nixon made explicit public statements that showed that he believed himself to actually be above the law.
I haven't felt like that since the Ervin Committee hearings on Watergate over forty years ago. At that time, people in high places were testifying —under oath —making conflicting statements. We knew that much of it was not true and yet there were Erlichman, Haldman, Mitchel, Cohlson et al straight faced lying to everyone on television—and we knew it. You could see it in their faces and hear it in their voices. Any conversation on some new emerging aspect of the scandal included shaking of heads and statements of disbelief regardless of party affiliation. No-one knew the truth, but everyone knew they were not telling the truth.
Today I feel the same way. The idea that someone in high office can say that the sky is red with indignant conviction, and when confronted with pictures of a deep blue sky, can "clarify" by saying, "Well of course I meant the sky on Mars is red.", disgusts me.
It is not, of course, just Clinton, but the whole Obama administration from gun-walking to debasing the currency, bankrupting the government and selective enforcement of The Nation's laws (I'll throw in Bush and weapons of mass destruction as well). Yet federal officials and beurocrats in all agencies at every level feel that they may do or say anything expedient to avoid accountability for incompetence, conflict of interest and blatant corruption. This rivals the arrogance of Richard Nixon and his aids in creating and defending the complex of political corruption we call Watergate.
Forty-two years later, I have the same feeling of impotent anger that I felt in the year I turned 21.
I have not felt this universal discontent since the Nixon years.
In 1972, I was just old enough to vote for the first time: Still in college nieve, inexperienced in life and critically evaluating both parties and the candidates. i wanted to make a well informed decision. At that time, all draft deferments had been removed. My status was 1-A and with a low number of 47 in the draft lottery. The Democrats were for pulling out "right now". Nixon was touting "Peace with honor".
Initially, Senator Hubert Humphrey (D Minnasota) seemed to be the reasonable, comfortable candidate, but he spoke in political clichés and platitudes. Soon I preserved him to be a bafoon. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D Minnisota) offered specific plans fto boost jobs and the economy while supporting the poor; good things for all people. He seemed to have a real plan, including a "Reverse Income Tax" a bit like the current earned tax credit. At age 21, that sounded reasonable. But McCarthy's "plan" turned out to be just a bunch of ad-hoc statements that did not add-up. In the end I voted for Nixon, was not drafted and the Vietnam War was over (for us) by the time I graduated in 1973.
Then the Watergate $h!t hit the fan.
Today, most cannot remember the public's collective anxiety as the Watergate scandal evolved day-by-day in the papers and on TV. Feelings of betrayal, dismay, anxiety and anger were experienced by a large section of society when they saw the bald-faced lying that in the end included Nixon as the major player and source of the moral corruption that sought to use ultimate power to retain power. After he resigned, Nixon made explicit public statements that showed that he believed himself to actually be above the law.
I haven't felt like that since the Ervin Committee hearings on Watergate over forty years ago. At that time, people in high places were testifying —under oath —making conflicting statements. We knew that much of it was not true and yet there were Erlichman, Haldman, Mitchel, Cohlson et al straight faced lying to everyone on television—and we knew it. You could see it in their faces and hear it in their voices. Any conversation on some new emerging aspect of the scandal included shaking of heads and statements of disbelief regardless of party affiliation. No-one knew the truth, but everyone knew they were not telling the truth.
Today I feel the same way. The idea that someone in high office can say that the sky is red with indignant conviction, and when confronted with pictures of a deep blue sky, can "clarify" by saying, "Well of course I meant the sky on Mars is red.", disgusts me.
It is not, of course, just Clinton, but the whole Obama administration from gun-walking to debasing the currency, bankrupting the government and selective enforcement of The Nation's laws (I'll throw in Bush and weapons of mass destruction as well). Yet federal officials and beurocrats in all agencies at every level feel that they may do or say anything expedient to avoid accountability for incompetence, conflict of interest and blatant corruption. This rivals the arrogance of Richard Nixon and his aids in creating and defending the complex of political corruption we call Watergate.
Forty-two years later, I have the same feeling of impotent anger that I felt in the year I turned 21.