Posted on 07/05/2016 10:22:00 AM PDT by Mariner
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I don’t know..I just don’t know what the next best thing is...
I’m so discouraged now it’s hard to think clearly...
“Gross negligence.” “Patent violation of her trust.” “Extremely careless.”
Even if Hillary Clinton is not guilty of any crime (which we all know she is), are these phrases that you want to be using to describe the president of the United States? They may not serve as a criminal indictment, but they certainly indict her fitness for the office.
Yes, thus criminal intent is implied as the disregard for the foreseeable injury is apparent in the trafficking of classified materials.
Rudy G. was just on FOX & he looked flummoxed....and I’m thinking Rudy, where have you been ? Listen to your friend Trump; he knew what was coming down.
He is likely a liability. He is no longer needed and did what was needed.
The mysterious and timely demise of characters that were in the know of the Klinton Krime Kabal has been very lucky for the Clintons. If the trend continues....
We are no longer a nation of laws.
Regular Americans should feel no compunction about breaking the laws that are on the books.
Lackey Comey and leashed Lynch did it for her
Not likely. Having the FBI in your pocket is like having Hitler’s SS. No way they give up that asset. Besides, Comey is a grade A spook...and will have all kinds of “if I die” “life insurance” schemes set up.
Lynch has not publicly refused to prosecute, yet here is Comey giving Lynch a convenient out. The ball was clearly dropped by Comey.
Agreed, it's disgusting. But imagine he fell on his sword and recommended prosecution. The only thing that would have changed is his recommendation - his investigative findings would be exactly the same. And that's what I find notable, that under pressure from Obama, Hillary, Lynch and the Congressional Rats, he nevertheless did his job as an investigator. Now his report gets acknowledged as existing - they HAVE to acknowledge it, because they use it to justify his conclusion. But in the future it can be used to dismiss his conclusion, too.
Lynch is hiding behind Comey right in front of everyone. Comey openly says that it's not "reasonable" for him to recommend prosecution to Lynch. Why? Because Lynch won't prosecute ANYWAY. So Comey knew that no matter what he did, Lynch would not prosecute. So he did the next best thing - he blamed Lynch and preserved his investigation results to be used another day.
Yes, she “can” still be prosecuted but won’t be, not under the current administration. The tendrils of the Clinton machine reach deep no doubt they have something on Zero.
That’s the only explanation for this “carelessness”, to borrow a term used by the Director. There is. I love loss between the Clintons and the Obamas. So Obama isn’t holding back prosecution out of kindness to the Clintons.
How did that work for Vince foster? Hillary was the first one to his office and would t let investigators in until she cleaned it out.
We give thes folks too much credit.
If Hillary is trailing in October, we may see an Arkancide.
That statement is correct. Intent to harm the United States is not applicable here. Only the damage is. The law says nothing about INTENT and Comey knows that.
Tell this to your friends. Tell this to your mother. Tell this to your kids. Tell this to everyone you know.
So we can use the same argument for Snowden right? Just carelessness like sorry officer, I didn’t realize I was going 100 in a 25mph
Yep
Essentially Comely laid out all the facts so the public can see the truth and is saying unless you demand she be prosecuted she won’t be so why should I put my ass on the line
Fly your state flag.
Please don’t tell my mother that I’m an FBI agent. She still thinks I play piano in a whorehouse.
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.