[Enchante]

1917 statute specifying “gross negligence”

DOJ has only used it once in 99 yrs

DOJ has concerns about whether it is appropriate to ..... no reasonable prosecutor would bring the 2nd case in 100 yrs based on “gross negligence”

evidence of “great carelessness” but not mens rea

[Enchante]

IT IS THE BLEEPING LAW, DIRECTOR COMEY!!!!

[SE Mom]

But, Mr. Comey, it’s what the STAUTE SAYS. You can’t just willy-nilly rewrite the law.

[Cboldt]

-- DOJ has only used it [18 USC 793(f)] once in 99 yrs --

And even that time, the charge was not taken to trial. It was dropped, the focus of the case was redirected to a different statute.

I'm curious if anybody will bring up 18 USC 1924(a).

[mabelkitty]

You would if it was a former First Lady
You would if this former First Lady was the Secretary of State
You would if this person was a Yale-educated lawyer.
You would if this person was running for President.
You would if these people were accused of running a quid pro quo shadow government under the disguise of the Clinton Family Foundation.

Comey’s answers don’t pass the smell test when framed in that fashion.

However, you would not do this if 50% of the people currently in DC are also complicit in these activities.