Posted on 05/12/2017 2:02:01 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
FBI agents angered at FBI director's lenient handling of email probe!
The surprise firing of James Comey was triggered by the ousted FBI director's recent comments on why he chose not to seek the prosecution of Hillary Clinton for using an unsecure email server, according to White House and Trump administration officials.
President Trump was angered by Comey's assertion that Clinton had no criminal intent when she mishandled highly classified information on her private server, said officials familiar with the president's thinking.
..
"Federal law is clear regarding classified materials: intent is not relevant [to mishandling classified information]," the White House official said.
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Somebody at the WH gets it. Comey doesn't get it.
Intent is not needed.
Trump and the FBI agents have it right.
The statute does not require intent to be violated, only gross mishandling of classified information.
They’re trying to use INTENT against President Trump’s Immigration Order.
Oh, Comey got it. He did exactly what he had been paid big buck to do.....cover for dems breaking the law and keep them out of jail. He just went down for being corrupt in the end.
Comey enjoys breathing.
Weasel-Face Comey.
Weasel Weasel Weasel
Even if it was ignorance of the law (which I doubt), everyone knows that is no excuse.
If it worked for HRC, it should work for everyone. Seems to me that a precedent has been set. “Gee, Mr. GMan, my intent was not rob that bank” should be enough to let a bank robber off the hook.
Intent is a part of the criteria to consider, but it is not the only aspect.
A drunk driver that kills somebody may not have “intended” to do so, but should have known of the risks involved with their drunk driving.
Intent does not alone determine criminality, but it factors into the case.
A lawyer, former first lady, former Senator, and now Secretary of State, sets up private system to handle classified electronic communication.
Can hardly claim no intent to violate rules and advisories, more likely intended to avoid rules and consequences.
That is what a reasonable person could conclude.
“They’re trying to use INTENT against President Trump’s Immigration Order.”
Wow, ya, very good point!
-— “Gee, Mr. GMan, my intent was not rob that bank” should be enough to let a bank robber off the hook. ——
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/05/10/south-boston-murder-suspect-loophole-deported/
It works if you are a diverse immigrant. Some animals are more equal than others.
It isn’t an excuse for us little people. No one can tell me there wasn’t intent. She knew exactly what she was doing to avoid oversight for her Pay to Play scheme. I want the Clinton Foundation investigated!
Oh Comey gets it. He is a shill and a stooge, but not stupid.
Comey doesn’t get it....>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes he does get it.. One of the rudimentary aspects of law,the ingredients of a felony crime: actuse reus (action or conduct that is a constituent element of a crime) and mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime.) Every lawyer that ever attended law school has this within the 1st week of law school.
Comey was simply covering for Hillary Clinton.And the MSM went right along with it, hoping to whistle past the grave yard.
The statute in question is whats called a “strict liability” statute. This is because only the actus reus need be proven in court, No actus reus is required for a conviction, no intent needs to be proven for a conviction.
Comey’s comments were made to intentionally cover up Hillary’s crime.
Yes he should have been fired, but a lot earlier. Now Comey has doubled down to do as much injury to the Trump administration as he can, should he be fired, and now the caterwauling of the left begins. That’s a big problem which requires the indictment and prosecution of both Hillary and Comey.
Bill Gertz is a good journalist.
The “intent” goes back farther in time, it goes back to the time that she set up this off the grid network at her home. The reason that was done was simple, to keep all info away from prying eyes, forever. Fits with her profile going back to the Rose Law Firm billing records which she kept for two years till after the probe was over. This is one malicious witch and she needs go down hard, however that is.
Sure intent is irrelevant. But ... for the heck of it ... let’s look at Comey’s reasoning. How does Comey really know Hillary had no mischievous intent?
“Intent” was deliberately left out of the original legislation due to the very serious national security ramifications that could result from carelessness with classified material.
Suppose a government official who has a Top Secret clearance takes a file out of the office (illegally, but with no “intent” to cause harm to our country) in order to study it at home. Suppose, further, that she accidentally leaves her briefcase, which contains the file, at a coffee shop. Someone then might pick it up and, while innocently looking for the name and address of the owner, realize that he has something that could be very valuable to one of our enemies. Perhaps the file contains a list of American spies in Russia. Or, it might be battle plans for one of our engagements in the Middle East. Or, whatever. The person who found it has no security clearance, and the situation has now become extremely dangerous and serious for our nation.
A scenario such as this, or, perhaps, a more modern one involving cell phones and computers, is exactly why “intent” to do harm is not required. Even some democrats might be smart enough to understand this.
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.