Posted on 08/25/2016 12:11:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
When FBI Director James Comey announced in July criminal charges would not be brought against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for storing and transmitting top secret, classified information on a number of different private servers, this is the argument he made regarding intent (bolding is mine):
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
But according to former prosecutor and House Oversight Committee member Trey Gowdy, who has seen the notes taken during an interview conducted by the FBI with Clinton about her private email servers, agents didn't ask the former Secretary and current Democrat presidential nominee about intent at all.
"Remember James Comey said she was not indicted because he didn't have sufficient evidence on the issue of intent? I didn't see any questions on the issue of intent. There's no question she handled them [classified emails] negligently or extremely carelessly, he said he didn't go forward with charges specifically because he didn't have criminal intent. I didn't see any questions on that," Gowdy said on Fox News Thursday morning.
How can the FBI prove or disprove intent if they never asked about it?
Gowdy also argued the FBI interview notes should be released to the public. At this point the FBI is refusing to do so.
It should also be noted the mishandling of classified information doesn't require intent for prosecution.
This post has been updated with additional information.
The FBI agents intended to see their specifically enumerated loved ones again, so they did what they had to do.
Did Comey INTEND to allow this murdering thief to continue defrauding and betraying the American public and destroying our safety by selling or (worse yet) giving our top secret information to our worst enemies?
I say....He did.
IOW, making the story about intent is simply muddying the waters? She should be indicted for mishandling classified government documents and secrets. Though a lawyer, her interest in law was solely in circumventing it to accomplish the destruction of her enemies. I doubt she even cares about ideology. Just getting whatever she wants.
Yep.
I don’t trust any of ‘em anymore.
.
Not many people continue doing something multiple times per day for over a year if they don’t intend to do it.
.
.........well, you didn’t “intend” to so don’t worry about it...........!!!
“... Didn’t Bother...”
=
... Absolutely, Deliberately Refused To Go Anywhere Near...
See no evil; hear no evil... so that when the time comes, you can safely speak no evil of the Clinton Crime Conglomerate, and thereby retain your occupation and respiration.
Gowdy Doody didn’t.
Didn’t bother either, that is.
It has nothing to do with intent.
What Hillary DID was a serious security violation. People go to jail for things like that.
I’m sure it would be a surprise to most people, that unlike police officers all over the country, the Feds do not record their interviews in any way. No camera hidden in the clock in the interview rooms. No audio recordings either.
Just an interviewer or two and some clown taking notes. Usually the notes are destroyed after the reports are written, so there’s really no way to verify anything that was put in a report. And the Feds rely heavily on 18 USC 1001...Lying to the Feds. It’s a way to intimidate witnesses/suspects into giving up the info. They’re given a choice to get on the “bus” and help themselves out or they get prosecuted. If the Feds can’t prove their involvement in a crime, then they try to prove they lied or obstructed. And they’ll prosecute them on that. So, there’s always something they have to hang over your head. One of the reasons they are able to get people to cooperate. Real cops, on the other hand, don’t have those luxuries and have to solve cases the old fashioned way.
I don’t remember Trey asking her about intent either as she bolloxed her way through his fake investigation.
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;
There is no doubt that Hillary mishandled classified information. She did so because she broke the rules of the State Department to which she had agreed in writing and other federal statutes. Further, there is no doubt that in mishandling the data by channeling it all into her homebrew server, she was doing exactly what she intended to do. In other words, funneling the classified information into her server was not inadvertent but the obvious intent of creating the server.
Criterion number one met and exceeded.
or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct;
There can be no question that "vast quantities" of materials were exposed because we are talking about tens of thousands of e-mails. There can be no question that these materials were "exposed" because even the FBI does not know it attempts to hack were successful, although there clearly were attempts.
Criterion number two met and exceeded.
or indications of disloyalty to the United States;
No overt indications of disloyalty were uncovered, although the entire history of the career of Hillary Clinton in the Department of State at least arguably raises the inference. Please note that this element of the crime is presented by the director and the disjunctive, "or." But for the purposes of this discussion,
Criterion number three not met.
or efforts to obstruct justice.
Hillary destroyed or caused to be destroyed approximately 35,000 e-mails, clearly, destruction of evidence is evidence of obstruction of justice. I understand this was done after subpoenas were received but that of course is not a requirement to proving obstruction of justice.
Criterion number four met and exceeded.
We do not see those things here.
A blind man could "see" these things or, more to the point, an honest man could and would see them.
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.