Posted on 07/18/2019 7:46:43 AM PDT by daniel1212
Here is former FBI Director Comey’s testimony to Congress. Read this and make up your own mind:
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. 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?
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 U.S. Department of State 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?
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. (Matthew 12:36)
Applies to us all though.
Meanwhile at the super secret underground lair HQ of the DOH-j.................. Crickets.
That's funny right there.
Bkmk
To start with, Comey had no legal authority to make that call, so the situation is not legally resolved at all.
We’ll never know about the 33,000 email the b•tch deleted, “with a cloth?”
The charge of mishandling of classified material does not require intent to mishandle. The simple mishandling is all that is required.
Clinton and her ‘gang’ are automatically guilty of destroying evidence. That should be good for at least 20 years each. Any further evidence that comes up in a real investigation instead of the sham one under obama and holder would just tack on more time. I imagine there are many who should never see the light of day again; including the clinton’s.
“Why do people...want Clinton’s emails investigated...it was investigated + she was found not guilty?”
Answer:
Why do Congresscritters want to keep investigating Russia-gate...it was investigated + Trump was found not guilty?”
By that same reasoning, Trump was found not guilty.
Meanwhile, now it’s back to Trump “hush money”.
Ergo, it is better to rape a woman and deny you ever did, while working to trash their reputation, than to have consensual sex and pay the woman per a NDA agreement.
Obammy weaponized the entire federal gubmint.
Worst thing EVER to happen to the U.S.A.
Justice Dept.?
I.R.S.?
F.B.I.?
Etc. Etc. all horse shit at this point.
Not one criminal seen a moment in jail as of now.
It wasn’t investigated. It was “investigated” on the principle of the Red Queen: Verdict first, evidence later. They decided the result before beginning the investigation because the investigators all supported her.
The fact is that just having the unsecured personal server violated the Espionage Act. No one is above the law. Not even the Clintons.
I think Carly Fiorina’s best moment was when she distributed cloths with the phrase “Wipe? Like with a cloth?” printed on them.
Funny as hell, but I don’t remember it.
New hit piece on Trump.
The Great hack. - Netflix
This article explains though for those not remembering.
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.