Posted on 07/05/2016 10:12:38 AM PDT by Don Hernando de Las Casas
"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."
As we all know, "gross negligence" is the standard (not intent) and you can read the law on a billion posts right on this forum. BUT, let's just say "intent" is required to prosecute, IS COMEY REALLY AND TRULY SAYING THAT HILL DID NOT KNOW IT WAS ILLEGAL TO BE RECKLESS WITH STATE SECRETS? Can he really be saying that?
No, he is not saying that! See the below two paragraphs. In those paragraphs, he says she knew. So, by his own words, she broke the law, and she knew she broke the law.
"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."
The above paragraphs state quite clearly that she broke the law. And it is important to point out that this was NOT a slip up or mistake on hillary’s part—this was SOP, all day every day for SIX LONG YEARS. This was an ongoing, continuous breaking of the law day in and day out, and she cannot be prosecuted?
Six years of continuous "gross negligence" by SOMEBODY WHO KNEW BETTER is not prosecutable? What, EXACTLY, could she have done to warrant prosecution?
Be a Republican.
Be a Republican.
That is probably true.
She is using a “babe in the woods” defense and wants to be President.
Last week, Bill Clinton met with the US Attorney General to “talk about grandchildren.” Saturday, the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton at her home for 3 1/2 hours. Three days later, over a national holiday, the FBI has compiled a complete report and announces there will be no prosecution. Has our system ever been more rotten and corrupt? Never. They are destroying confidence in our legal system. You are famous, you get a pass. You are an ordinary person, you go to jail. No wonder the Attorney General said she would accept the recommendations given to her. She already knew what it would be.
Exactly...
yep - “oh those e-mails were all about my yoga and my daughters wedding plans, silly female me”
She basically played the dumb blond card. Who in the hell believed that?
Try to tell the ‘not intended” line to the judge on a drunk driving homicide charge.
She did it. She admitted to it.
Explanation of the Obama regime:
it DOES NOT MATTER what they tell the American Sheeple
or whether it makes any sense
or (obviously) whether its true or NOT (it is usually NOT TRUE, indeed Obama is the successor to Gobbels in the Big Lie Department)
all they have to do is EITHER cover up the truth or else
LIE about it
and the American Sheeple ARE THUSLY DISPENSED WITH.
Period.
We’ve long had black robed tyrants legislating from the bench. Now we have federal law enforcement legislating in press conferences to change laws, which is exactly what Comey did. He amended current law to require “intent.”
When do we the people get to legislate during the commission of a crime?
Leaks from investigators coming ...
Very well said. You nailed it. Comey lied through his teeth saying no one would ever prosecute. He used a euphemism for gross negligence, and she did it repeatedly.
One quibble with what you said: I think she was only SoS for 4 years. Same thing.
Thanks for the correction. If I post again, I’ll fix it.
It became an "entitlement" that continues even today. She knew she could run her bathroom server and knew she would not get even a slap on the wrist.
I guess it is time to say that any Federal Law that we break in the future there was no intent. That should do it.
Having FBI director Comey say what he did rather destroys his credibility in my opinion.
I think Comely laid out all the evidence so the public can see Hillary is guilty as hell
Otherwise he didn’t need to go into all that detail
Anybody reading his statement can see that
But he knows that no fed prosecutor has the gonads to take the case on
I think he is hoping that pressure from public and what news outlets that have integrity after reading his brief will demand action
It’s the too stupid defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.