Posted on 07/09/2016 12:47:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
FBI Director James Comey told Congress on Thursday that there is a law, passed in 1917, criminalizing gross negligence in handling classified material, but "nobody" ever invokes it, and he insisted that Justice Department prosecutors wouldn't, either.
He said the Justice Department has applied that 1917 law only once over the years; and knowing the Justice Department as he does, "No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence," Comey said.
"I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were in the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did."
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
In his opening statement to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Comey said he welcomed the opportunity to explain why the FBI reached the conclusion it did regarding Hillary Clinton's careless use of a personal email server.
He said the FBI was guided by the facts, the law, and how people have been treated in the past:
"There are two things that matter in a criminal investigation of a subject -- what did the person do, and when they did that thing, what were they thinking? When you look at the hundred-years plus of the Justice Department investigation and prosecution of the mishandling of classified information, those two questions are obviously present," Comey said.
Comey said it's important to know what people were thinking: "We don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do. That is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving the mishandling of classified information."
He pointed to the 1917 statute "that on its face, makes it a crime, a felony, for someone to engage in gross negligence. So that would appear to say, well maybe in that circumstance you don't need to prove they knew they were doing something that was unlawful. Maybe it's enough to prove that they were just really, really careless, beyond a resonable doubt."
But Comey noted that at the time Congress passed the law in 1917, "there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you're going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. And so there was a lot of concern when the statute was passed.
"As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern," he said.
"I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice, they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done it once that I know of, in a case involving espionage.
"And so when I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that's sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it that they were doing something that was against the law.
"So given that assessment of the facts, and my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains, no reasonable proseuctor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence."
Comey told the committee, "That's just the way it is."
"I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were in the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did."
Comey said people can disagree, but he stands by his and his team's decision that the "appropriate resolution was not with a criminal prosecution."
And what did you mess up? Had I or anyone talked about certain TS OPS we would be in Leavenworth.
If one of the Founders, himself chosen to interpret the Constitution to "the People," through his writings in THE FEDERALIST's 85 Essays, makes such a strong assertion about the nation's Constitution's supremacy, then isn't it reasonable that elected or appointed officials in the government it structures are not allowed to "innovate" upon appropriately-enacted laws flowing from its provisions?“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act.” – Alexander Hamilton
Has Comey found some new, and appropriately-passed Amendment?
3(d) Avoid conducting official Department business from your presonal e-mail accounts.
Negligent discharges of classified information (NDCIs) happen regularly and are not criminally prosecuted.
However, your and your buddy Comey are totally full of bovine excrement classifying this an an NDCI! Inadvertently slipping up is different than purposefully and repeatedly transferring classified materials to an unclassified environment. NDCIs are, by definition, singular incidents. I have seen numerous people let go for even “simple” NDCIs. This was intentional and blatant disregard of Federal law.
Everyone with a clearance knows that they would be in jail if they attempted the same actions. In fact, simply possessing TK materials outside a classified environment without a courier card would result in prosecution.
Well, the Constitution was ratified in 1788, so does that make it out of date Mr. Comey?
So the excuse that she was “simply” negligent is all that much harder to believe!
I wonder, who was she sending the classified material to?
And, the bonus is that this decision is a victory for Trump. Now the Dems can't get rid of Clinton before the election. Trump should have no trouble beating Crooked Hillary.
Then why is the law still on the books? Just in case somebody needs to use it against one of “the little people”?
So you are making a decision based on politics....
Destroy the democRAT party or they will destroy America... It’s as simple as that.
Actually, I heard she sent some with the classification heading ...
When was the law making homicide a crime written? Shouldn’t we just blow that one off also? After all, the “progressives” keep telling us that we now live in a civilized society as was demonstrated by BLM in Dallas a few days ago. Like the brilliant and “progressive” commie libs like to say, “Why does anyone need a gun anyway?”
No, I am just glad that the correct decision turned out to be the better decision for Trump. It’s better that Trump run against Clinton than, say, Biden. Everyone knows that Clinton is a crook.
Comey- Professional DC climber, kisser of rings and azzes.
Now that they have dropped the investigation into her computer hardware, that should free up some agents to look into her bank accounts. The two Clintons have sold their office to the tune of maybe a billion dollars. I’m sure that’s a much more interesting target than just worrying about what server she uses.
Of course, Comey has been in Clinton’s pockets since about 2001. So then again, maybe not.
How were Jonathan Pollard and Christopher Boyce charged?
I know there were many others.
Was it not under a statute like this one, if not this very statute? Does DoD have its own prosecutorial arm?
For civilians? No, it doesn’t.
Geez, that law is sooooooo last century!!!!
Just slightly older than Hellary.
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.