Posted on 05/24/2017 9:12:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
For almost a year, Donald Trump has been complaining that FBI Director James Comey gave Hillary Clinton "a free pass for many bad deeds," as the president recently put it on Twitter. Trump thinks his opponent in last year's presidential election should have been prosecuted for her loose email practices as secretary of state, even if she did not deliberately expose classified information.
The president might want to reconsider that hard line attitude. The reason Comey cited for not recommending charges against Clinton -- a lack of criminal intent -- could prove crucial in rebutting the allegation that Trump obstructed justice by trying to impede the FBI's investigation of ties between his associates and the Russian government.
When Comey announced the results of the Clinton investigation last July, he criticized her "extremely careless" handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information," saying she "should have known" the unsecured private email system she used "was no place" to discuss such matters. That description sounded like grounds for charging Clinton under 18 USC 793, which makes it a felony to "mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way."
But Comey argued that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue a case against Clinton based on gross negligence. He said he was aware of just one case where the government had used that standard in the century since the law was passed, which suggests federal prosecutors "have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate."
While prosecuting Clinton might have been legally feasible, Comey told a congressional committee, it would have been unjust. "In our system of law, there's a thing called mens rea," he said, referring to the state of mind required for a conviction. "We don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do."
That brings us back to Trump, who has allegedly done several things that could be viewed as attempts to undermine the FBI's investigation of Russian meddling in last year's presidential election, including the hacking of embarrassing Clinton-related emails. The FBI's investigation, Comey confirmed during congressional testimony in March, encompasses possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
After potential collusion became public knowledge, The Washington Post reported that Trump asked Daniel Coats, director of National Intelligence, and Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, to publicly say there was no evidence of such collusion. Both declined, deeming the request improper.
The previous month, according to a Comey memo described by The New York Times, Trump interceded with the FBI director on behalf of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one of the associates whose ties to Russia are of interest to the bureau. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," Trump reportedly told Comey. "He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
A few months after that alleged encounter, Trump fired Comey. Two days later, Trump admitted that the Russia probe, which he had denounced as a "taxpayer-funded charade" on Twitter the day before he gave Comey the boot, was on his mind when he made the decision.
Some Democrats are already calling for Trump's impeachment, arguing that his response to the FBI investigation amounts to obstruction of justice. But that crime requires proof of intent, and it is not at all clear that Trump knew he was doing something he shouldn't do -- the standard that Comey applied to Clinton.
If Trump was acting "corruptly," as the statute that seems most relevant requires, why would he approach three officials who were likely to make note of his requests? Why would he publicly condemn the Russia investigation before and after firing Comey?
These do not seem like the actions of a man who is conscious of his own guilt. They seem like the actions of a man who is only beginning to figure out how a president is supposed to behave.
Brennan made some kind of comment about not knowing you are committing treason until it is too late.
I have a problem with this article in that it is premised on there being obstruciton of justice in fact, and the only defense Trump possibly has is he didn't know obstruction of justice was illegal. IOW, the premise of the article is that Trump is guilty of obstruction, or would be if he knew what obstruction was.
“The president might want to reconsider that hard line attitude. The reason Comey cited for not recommending charges against Clinton — a lack of criminal intent — could prove crucial in rebutting the allegation that Trump obstructed justice by trying to impede the FBI’s investigation of ties between his associates and the Russian government. “
Hillary Clinton was alleged to have violated a specific criminal statute related to handling of classified material that did not require a showing of intent to establish criminality.
Unless as a threshold showing it is established that Trump is alleged to have violated a specific criminal statute or some other law [and nearly all criminal law is codified in statutes these days] that does not require intent, this argument goes nowhere.
Is there any U.S. citizen of average intelligence that doesn't know that "classified" means, keep it safe, keep it secret, and keep it secure? But, hillary, after 23 years in government dealing with this country's laws and security measures doesn't know this?
Is there any U.S. citizen of average intelligence that doesn't know that "classified" means, keep it safe, keep it secret, and keep it secure? But, hillary, after 23 years in government dealing with this country's laws and security measures doesn't know this?
We don’t want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do.”
Well isn’t it obvious that Hillary Rotten Clinton had below average intelligence, even though she was suppoed to be the “smartest” woman in the world?
She is seldom the brightest woman in the room. But, maybe she got distracted by all of the cookies she was making.
Knowing Comey, shouldn’t Trump’s intentions be taken into consideration?
There are no body of precedents in impeachment.
Trump KNOWS this is a “witch hunt” and a waste of time.
He believing this is obvious to EVERYONE wants the whole thing ended.
His requests are just a way of asking when will this crap end?
There is NOTHING there.
Hillary had criminal intent from the get-go, when she set up the private server in order to evade FOIA requests and to use the Clinton Foundation for shakedowns and money laundering. She is a lawyer and knew well what her legal responsibilities were. But she was guaranteed to get away with it because Obama was complicit in the scheme since he knew at least within days that she was using a private server and not her official State Department email account. He had to protect her, and Loretta Lynch knew that.
The problem is not that Hillary has a low IQ, The problem is that Americans actually believe the silliness they are told.
Comey knows that intent is NOT part of the statues that Hillary violated. He was blocking Hillary's prosecution therefore he was obstructing justice. That is a crime.
Hillary knows that using her server was a violation of law but the purpose of the server was to allow her to run her "pay for play" Secretary of State scam. As long as she and clowns like Comey can tell nitwit Americans that it was bad judgement (or no classified information was handled), they will keep saying the lies over and over.
The only thing that will stop all of this stupidity is to start arresting felons like Hillary, Bill, Comey, Donnna Brazile, John Podesta, and even Hussein Obama.
And then convict them all with long prison sentences. The presstitutes will scream that the country needs to heal (so no prosecutions in their eyes will be needed) but a country based on law and order must prosecute every one of them to the fullest extent possible.
Lock Hillary and Hussein up, and throw away the key.
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.