Posted on 10/29/2016 2:58:32 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
Your post is valid but...
The Democratic position is that the Republican Congress should not have any authority over Executive Branch officials when a Democrat is President but should have authority over Executive Branch officials when there is a Democratic Congress and a Republican President (as in Watergate).
Just wanted to clear that up.,. :-)
Thanks for posting/commenting. Interesting thread BUMP!
So now that he did, the dems and media are saying that he "violated" DOJ policy?
Comey brought this on himself.
This late breaking discovery of new evidence wouldn't be an issue if Conmey and the FBI had done a real and thorough investigation the first time around instead of using the investigation to help Hillary cover her tracks.
Excellent post. I did not know that Mitchell went to Maxwell Prison.
“[W]ith a Trump presidency and irate Congress...” America will become great again.
What post at reddit? Do you happen to have a link?
Wow!
Bkmrk.
According to my local bank, policies are never informal. Guidelines are.
The dems have been stripping Congress of its rights and responsibilities. This is no surprise, under Obozo we have an imperial presidency by edict, not a republic.
I’m not sure Congress has such authority. But it’s a nice story.
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep.
Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ..."
Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That’s what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right[]
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.
But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
thanx. but there is does not appear to be a “rule” or “policy” on that matter.
Lynch referred to it as a “long standing practice” and also
referred to it as precedents and guidelines, but cited no specific rule.
The only thing that seems relevant so far, is that Comey violated a guideline.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-1-7000-media-relations#1-7.530
if you run across the rule\policy, let me know ?
thanks.
But he was asked, he agreed to do so, and even Elijah Cummings, the Minority Chair, did not voice any objection.
So now all these democrats and media DNC’ers are coming out of the woodwork saying Comey had no reason to send such a letter to Congress. That's patently false.
The staffer's point to me was he did, and that was being glossed over as if it never happened.
By the way, Ole Elijah is having the fit about this now, even though he was there when Comey was asked.
I bet he thought this was in the bag, so said nothing but chuckled to himself.
When President Trump is in charge, I hope this scumbag Cummings gets the full Alcie Hastings/ Charlie Rangel welcome package. Maxwell AFB is ready for their stay at Club Fed!
You might find this interesting...
Day #2 – Hillary’s I.T. Guy Paul Combetta, aka: “stonetear” – The Reddit and The Timeline…
What a weasel.
Our government. I hope criminals give FBI agents the same smarmy answers when they’re under the spotlight.
Maybe that’s where Comey learned how to reply like that....
Thanks so much! :)
It’s going to happen. There is going to be a moment on election day evening when the nickel finally drops and the awful truth blooms like an atomic blast in their minds: Donald Trump is my new boss. Donald Trump is calling the shots. The bull is in our China shop.
this leak from a friend of a friend at walmart is his bullet proof vest
Thanks for posting that exchange..
Comey’s answers were answers that gave information... more than he had to give. Why? He could have answered yes or no... but he answered fully.. He did the same thing when he announced he was not going to indict, after he gave out the most damaging information on hillary’s actions and lies.. why again?
Is he in the habit of giving out all he knows? or was he trying to tell everyone something in those answers and in that information.
I used to think he was still investigating the clinton’s foundation and that is the reason he was avoiding any indictments.. but he said something later (forget what it was) that he was not doing any more investigating and it was pretty much over. And now this..
Comey’s either in a lot of hot water, or he’s getting himself out of a lot of hot water.. not sure which.
Trap laid, sprung.
Honestly they didn’t expect anything new to show up on Hillary. They had investigated the whatsis out of it.
Well there WAS more, and the detectives in NYC brought it to the FBI. It was mixed up with Anthony Weiner’s raunchy sexting, which once more he went and did to an underage girl.
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.