Posted on 07/06/2016 11:23:35 AM PDT by Jim W N
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 ...
“One of the things I find stupefying ...”
Couldn’t the FBI given their findings without giving a recommendation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangerment
Endangerment is a crime, whether or not someone is harmed. For example, leaving a child in a hot car, or unattended.
You don’t have to intend harm, and it doesn’t have to happen. Just set up the situation and the likelihood, and you’ve broken the law.
Who appointed you?
Odd that you think someone needs to be appointed to have an opinion.
But since you asked.. nunya.
Putting your country at risk by violating the laws intended to guard against such risk are both malum in se and malum prohibitum.
malum in se
(mal-uhm in say) adv. Latin referring to an act that is “wrong in itself,” in its very nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created by statute, which are “malum prohibitum.”
This is just a big middle finger to the American people from the most transparently corrupt administration yet.
Good common law stuff, but here, you need to have violated either the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended or a constitutional federal statute which 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) is.
Exactly. He was probably paid a visit by Luca Brasi and told what he was going to say.
I'm not concerned with your opinions.
I object to your self-appointed role as forum monitor, as if you're qualified to decide what others may post, or what sources are worthy of the forum.
You never answered my question who appointed you?
And since you asked.. mindya... and stfu.
You may object all day and every day.
as if you're qualified to decide what others may post
Please point out where I've told anyone what to post.
Aren't you now complaining about what I post?
Please explain the difference.
You never answered my question who appointed you?
I'm on a mission from God.
This is the third time that this article has been posted.
Bump.
We're not here to be your free advertising tool.
Sure looks like you are just here to promote yourself, Jaacov.
Is there anything besides your own material you feel worth posting?
You have mighty thin skin for a busy body.
Nothing will change. It has been decreed.
Move on.. nothing to see here citizen.
Bookmark
Nowhere in any of that do I see any telling of anyone what to post.
I see me being critical of what was posted.
The two are not the same.
Now then.. are you telling me what to post or merely being critical?
You have mighty thin skin for a busy body.
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.