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."
But did you slip up with classified stuff a dozen times a day, every day of the week for years?
If that law is reserved only for the gross-grossly incompetent, and used sparingly so sparingly this would have been only the second time it was used in 100 years, it would be an indication that she grievously and overtly broke even the most seldom used law on this topic. It would have been fitting.
Hillary used her email server as a dead stop for enemies of the state. Enemies that they wish to support, but cannot do so directly
I didn’t think so....so what statutes were they charged with breaking?
Few others have been prosecuted since 1917 because their “gross negligence” was either relatively penny-ante, or the perpetrators were charged for willful misconduct, not neglect. The killer fact is that no one in the last 99 years has “mishandled” classified information on such a vast scale or over such a long period of time as Hillary Clinton. The scope of Hillary’s misconduct is unprecedented; evoking prior non-enforcement to excuse her is ridiculous.
The whole issue of gross negligence is a red herring in this case. A mountain of evidence indicates that Hillary’s misconduct was willful, and part of an elaborate scheme. There can be no doubt that Hillary desired to “mishandle” the information. Whether her reason to mishandle it was to espionage, or to hide incompetence, graft, political corruption, etc., is irrelevant.
I think I’m living inside some kind of “Other” world...
I know, right? We all went sideways “Through the Looking Glass” in 2009.
I believe we are living in the age of the death of reason. No reasonable prosecutor could be found because reason is in short supply. Wise Latinas,the meaning of the word is, and Executive Orders are the new legal standard.
I'm not sure about Boyce, but Pollard was definitely charged under the 1917 act.
Of course, both those guys went way beyond gross negligence. They deliberately sold secrets for cash.
The lead prosecutor of Pollard was Joseph diGenova. Last March he made an incorrect prediction regarding the current case:
“No honest FBI will ever not [recommend] criminal charges in this case,” former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova said during an event hosted by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “There are going to be referrals for a series of criminal charges involving violations of the espionage statutes, the grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, the grossly negligent storage of classified information.”
...
“[The FBI] may not recommend felonies, as a courtesy to a woman who was the first lady for eight years, a senator and the secretary of state,” diGenova said. “They may as a courtesy try to do what they did with General Petraeus, and recommend misdemeanors. But make no mistake, they are going to recommend that she and others be charged with crimes.”
When was the first Law making Murder a Crime written in the United States?
I guess it’s cool to Murder someone now because that Law is obviously archaic.
Heck, the other day he implied that Involuntary Manslaughter should be abolished because it lacked Intent, right?
How about “negligent” Homicide?
Why have we not heard anything from the FBI regarding the purpose of Hillary's email server, which was to evade quite deliberately the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act?
And her motivation for evading FRA and FOIA? Could it have been to keep Clinton Foundation dealings secret?
MSNBC (Yes THAT MSNBC) Eviscerates Hillary’s Lawlessness & Obama’s Corruption
JAMES COMEY’S BAFFLING TESTIMONY (3) — CRIMINAL INTENT
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/james-comeys-baffling-testimony-3-criminal-intent.php
Let’s not arrest black people ever. Probably, no one will
Prosecute them anyway.
How Dare You start bringing up pertinent facts in an emotional argument on equal treatment for women.
The problem that NOBODY from either party is talking about. Is that top brass from both the republican and democrat parties would go to jail for being reckless with Top Secret material.
Hillary is far more fragrant than anybody else. But, its hard to hold her to the law when Obama himself and republicans before him broke security laws.
The US Government has horrible productivity, ancient processes and holds a secret like a sieve holds water.
+++1
My Lord, he is either a sell-out traitor or else a total fool.
Nobody in their right mind and with even the least smattering of knowledge about the law requiring the keeping of state secrets......could ever come up with a vapid, lame line of BS like that!
so i think he must have just crassly sold our country out, money talks (again)!
So Comey is okay with a President who is guilty of gross negligence of classified material, even though that person will be responsible for defending Comeys entire family from foriegn attack ?
Lavoy Finicum is unavailable for comment.
Comey belongs in jail with Hillary.
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.