Posted on 04/16/2018 11:22:25 AM PDT by Starman417
Yesterday I wrote about how Comey would not use or reveal "unverified information" that would have been detrimental to Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch but that he had no qualms about using unverified information to secure a FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump. Today we have another beauty.
Intent.
Sometimes there is intent and sometimes there is not. It seems there is intent when it's Trump but there isn't intent when it's Clinton.
You will remember how Hilary Clinton arranged for her own personal network in violation of government rules. You will remember how Strzok and Comey changed the Bureau findings from "reckless" to "extremely careless" in order to allow her to escape legal jeopardy. You will remember how Comey declared that they found was "no intent" to violate the law. You will also remember that intent is not required.
Prosecution under 18 USC 793 only requires that the information wind up being outside of its proper place of custody. You can argue the intent angle all the live long day but it doesn’t change the fact that the law clearly appears to have been broken. Whether the Justice Department (under the thumb of one of Clinton’s biggest campaign surrogates) decides to do anything about it is another question.Trey Gowdy had pretty much destroyed Comey on the issue of intent (All of it matters):
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?As a blind person could see, Clinton lied repeatedly and this pretty much proves intent. Despite all of the prevarications, Comey and Strzok decided that Clinton did not intend to do what she did.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.
In his interview with Clinton hack George Stephanopoulos, Comey suggested that Trump "possibly" may have committed obstruction of justice:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
For someone with a face that really shows his age (like “Maggie May”) and heavy bags under his eyes, Comey has some nerve commenting on Trump’s appearance.
What did Hillary promise Comey? And when did she promise it?
“What did Hillary promise Comey? And when did she promise it?”
She promised Comey that he will not commit suicide.
Can discern INTENT? Does Comey think he is channeling L RON HUBBARD?????
Comey’s wife and girls were counting on him to ‘exonerate’ H->
... which he had no authority to do.
But that didn’t stop him.
I hope a ton of legal problems are dropped on Comey and Hillary’s heads. They both deserve to be brought to justice and jailed.
Comey decided he was investigator, judge and jury resulting in no truth or justice, I think after reading reports on his book I believe he also thinks he is God!
....” I think after reading reports on his book I believe he also thinks he is God!”....
A person with a God complex is one that has an un-moving ‘mindset’ that he is infallible and not capable of being wrong or failing at any task no matter how difficult or daunting it might be. The person would most likely disregard the rules of society, and consider himself worthy of doing as he pleases...
Which is what he’s doing now and was doing.
Comey knows there is a big reward waiting for him for favoring Clinton and trashing Trump.
Comey says what kind of marriage must Trump have if his wife would even have a 1 percent chance of believing he would pay prostitutes to pee on a bed,well what would his wife and children say if their father indicted their heroin Hillary Clinton?
His wife and daughter worshipped the lying hitch,so The six foot eight pansy had his marching orders
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.