Posted on 07/07/2016 6:54:34 PM PDT by pboyington
I’ve always had the highest regard for the FBI and those who serve in that organization. The G-Men and G-Women are straight arrows, America’s clean cut, modern day super patriots who brush their teeth in the morning to the sound of Kate Smith belting out “God Bless America.”
The FBI Director, James Comey was apparently incorruptible, beyond reproach, a virtual altar boy in a 300 dollar suit with a 700 dollar pistol. Comey could never be bought. Comey could never be corrupted. Comey could never sell out his country.
Even Comey thought he couldn’t be bought or corrupted or sell out.
Until now…
But, Comey had never dealt with the forces of darkness. Forces of darkness defined as the evil, delusional, Machiavellian Ma Barker Clinton and her husband, Elmer Gantry’s evil doppelganger.
Comey appeared in front of the press two days ago, as white as a ghost. Perhaps he had seen Vince Foster’s or Jim McDougal’s? God knows what was said to him. God knows what was implied. God knows, but we never will…
Here are some excerpts from Comey’s statement on Tuesday, July 5th:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014.
As Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R. UT) asked Mr. Comey during today’s testimony to Congress, didn’t Hillary Clinton break the law by directing up to TEN individuals without ANY security clearances to view Top Secret information? Comey had no answer to that question, but responded with the canned line that somehow the attorneys for Mrs. Clinton didn’t actually read any of the classified information.
Really?
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery
Wouldn’t that be obstruction of justice, Mr. Comey?.
Comey continued by reciting a litany of transgressions committed by the bottle blonde Maoist in Dr. No attire.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Carelessness as described as gross negligence.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
To clarify this, Hillary Clinton sent and received the highest level of classified information in the US Government, concerning information from intelligence sources, on a non-secure server. What this means is that people’s lives were put in danger because of her actions.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Comey must certainly know that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans and perhaps, ISIS, have hacked into Mrs. Clinton’s server and have obtained copies of highly sensitive information.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
This is where Mr. Comey refuses to follow the law, and indeed is mis-interpreting it to allow Mrs. Clinton to go free. Mr. Comey states that because he believed Mrs. Clinton did not intend to mishandle classified information, she therefore should not be indicted. Even though she was extremely careless and negligent, she did not INTEND to mishandle information all the way up to Top Secret/SCI and SAP.
I’m no attorney, Mr. Comey, but I can read and the law clearly states otherwise in regards to intentions and negligence.
As Andrew McCarthy – former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, obtaining convictions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – notes:
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. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.
Shannen Coffin – who served in senior legal positions in the U.S. Department of Justice – writes:
Comey simply ignored — or rewrote — the plain language of § 793(f), which does not require any showing of criminal intent. There is a reason that Congress did not require a showing of intent in this provision of the Espionage Act: to protect against even inadvertent disclosure or risk of disclosure of protected information where the perpetrator demonstrated gross disregard for the national security. How Comey could conclude that “no reasonable prosecutor” could make this case is inexplicable in light of his own words. Even where the statutes prohibiting mishandling of classified information require intent, it is not exclusively intent to harm the national security (though that does play into some relevant statutes). Comey noted that his investigation looked at “a second statute, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.” That statute is 18 U.S.C. §1924(a), which provides that any federal official who “becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, [and] knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both [emphasis added].” Section 1924(a) does not require an intent to profit, to harm the United States, or otherwise to act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It only requires “intent to retain” classified documents at an unauthorized location, something Comey’s own comments suggest was the case here. Again, the case for prosecuting in light of these facts was more than simply fairly debatable it was quite strong.
Furthermore, Erik Zuesse from Washington’s Blog, outlines six federal statutes that the FBI apparently ignored in its investigation of Hillary Clinton, including 793, which was mentioned above:
18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure
(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure
Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction
Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(c) Whoever corruptly
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …
18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —
Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
What happens now?
Congressman Chaffetz is calling for a Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton’s testimony to the Benghazi Committee where she allegedly perjured herself by stating that she had never sent or received any information marked classified on her non secure server.
The FBI will not comment on whether there is an investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which many believe was a piggy bank for bribes and money laundering from foreign countries doing business with Madame Secretary and former President Bill Clinton.
And now, a decent man like James Comey has found himself in the hot seat, defending villains.
History will be harsh on you sir. Wouldn’t it have been better to follow your conscience instead of the corrupt, twisted, evil whims of those who believe they are above the law, and which you, this week, have given them reason to believe they are?
Justice died in America on July 5, 2016. To cover up the criminal actions of a lying, delusional psychopath running for the highest office in the land, the FBI has sold its soul to the devil.
I was watching it on TV. Heard the bit where Comey said the items of most importance to him being first his family, second his reputation. It could be interpreted to mean Comey’s family may have been at risk...and Comey’s reputation was secondary. Otherwise, I just can’t believe Hillary survived unscathed.
Absolute and complete nonsense.
At the time of his nomination, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page warned that Comey was a thoroughly political animal who had no place at the head of the FBI.
Nobody "got to" Comey. Nor was he ever a decent or honorable man. This result was preordained. Zero would never have appointed anything but a thoroughly bent man to head his Secret Police.
Nobody got to Comey. Nobody threatened Comey. He has ALWAYS been a Democrat. He was nominally a Republican during Bush's presidency because it helped his career.
Comey's career is what comes first. His family and so-called "reputation" are only useful to the image they project to advance his career.
This has been known about him, and warned about him, for a long time.
J Edgar Hoover would have Hillary in prison by now.
The rile of law died long before yesterday.
Scum bag Cummings made sure to let Comey know about the value of reputation and FAMILY which seemed like a veiled threat disguised with sickening praise. Am I the only one who felt this?
Scum bag Cummings made sure to let Comey know about the value of reputation and FAMILY which seemed like a veiled threat disguised with sickening praise. Am I the only one who felt this?
Scum bag Cummings made sure to let Comey know about the value of reputation and FAMILY which seemed like a veiled threat disguised with sickening praise. Am I the only one who felt this?
And yet in the middle of this extensive condemnation of Comey we find:
“I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally.”
WHY?
Many in Congress did much the same today. They took him to task but said they admired him.
The writer then concludes that he’s a “decent man.”
Seems to me he’s doing something very much like Comey himself did. Lay out all the warts and then judge the complexion to be peachy as a baby’s behind.
Comeyism: when decent people provide cover for evil.
1. Hillary is the weakest Democrat candidate.
2. Joe Biden, Bernnie, and others would also be a disateer for the country.
3. Comey in effect laid out many reasons for an idictment but then did not recommend an indictment.
4. Comey's first 15 minutes was in effect an anti Hillary speech.
Perhaps he is not as compromised as we think. I do not know.
Comey the Commy
What did Cummings say to Comey?
this is a man who is scared to death.
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.