THE CLINTONS
8 hours ago
Gregg Jarrett: Did Comey obstruct justice by protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution?
New questions over Comey's handling of the Clinton probe
Report: FBI confirms the former director drafted a letter exonerating Hillary before the investigation was complete; Ron Hosko explains on 'The Story.'
Former FBI Director James Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton was always improbable. Now it seems impossible.
The Espionage Act makes it a crime to mishandle classified documents “through gross negligence” (18 USC 793-f). Punishment upon conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
With 110 emails on Clinton’s private server that were classified at the time they were sent or received, the Democratic nominee for president could have been prosecuted on 110 separate felony counts. Yet Comey scuttled the case.
But a story in The Hill this week by John Solomon says a newly discovered document shows that then-FBI Director Comey authored a draft statement accusing Clinton of mishandling classified documents and being “grossly negligent.”
The document was confirmed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written a full two months before Clinton was ever interviewed by the FBI.
However, sometime later the words “gross negligence” were edited out with red lines. The words “extremely careless” were substituted. This would appear to show that Comey knew Clinton violated the law but subsequently resolved to conjure a way to exonerate her by altering the language.
Comey didn’t do a very good job. The two terms are largely synonymous under the law.
Many standard jury instructions, such as those in California and elsewhere, say the two terms mean the same thing. That is, gross negligence is an extreme departure from ordinary care. In other words, extremely careless behavior.
Either Comey is not well-versed in the law or he sought to draw a fine distinction where none exists. Nevertheless, he employed it as an excuse to protect Clinton from prosecution in a case that should have rendered 110 criminal charges against her.
Comey must now testify under oath to explain why he would write a statement of exoneration well before all the facts were known and why he would change the language to clear Clinton in the face of incriminating evidence that she mishandled classified material through gross negligence.
Did Comey seek to absolve Clinton for political reasons? Was he pressured to do so by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or others? And why exactly did he take it upon himself to usurp the authority of the Justice Department in clearing Clinton?
If Comey prevented the prosecution of Clinton – even though there was sufficient and compelling evidence to indict her – then such interference or intervention in the due administration of the law would constitute obstruction of justice by Comey.
But that is not all. Comey blatantly misinterpreted another criminal statute, also under the Espionage Act, which Clinton appeared to have violated.
Under 18 USC 978, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” mishandle classified information. Yet, in his infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, Comey declared that Clinton never “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
Comey was wrong. That is not the legal standard. The standard is whether Clinton committed intentional acts that violated the law. Clearly, she intended to set up a private server, and she intended to use it exclusively for all her communications as secretary of state, which would necessarily include classified documents.
By Clinton’s own admission, she deliberately created her personal and unauthorized server for the sake of convenience. She never set up a government email address for any other communications, as the FBI confirmed. These are the intentional acts that placed classified material in an unauthorized and vulnerable location.
Even if we accept Comey’s tortured interpretation that a person must intend to violate the law, the evidence is conclusive that Clinton knew she was committing crimes. How do we know? On January, 22, 2009, she signed a document titled “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” which states in very plain language the following:
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation or violations, of U.S. criminal laws.”
A second document signed by Clinton that same day acknowledged that she had received a comprehensive security briefing that instructed her on all the applicable laws involving sensitive information and classified materials and how they must be kept secure.
Clinton can hardly claim amnesia as a defense, since she sent an order to all State Department employees two years later, on June 28, 2011, cautioning them not to do what she was doing in violating the law. She stated in her order: “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”
Yet Clinton’s mendacity is breathtaking. Congress issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and produce emails. Three weeks later, on March 25, some 33,000 of her emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those communications were relevant to the subpoena, since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called “BleachBit.”
The act of defying a congressional subpoena is audacious at best – criminal at worst.
Destruction of records in any federal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice (18 USC 1519) and a violation of the Federal Records Act (18 USC 2071) and the Public Officers Law (18 USC 1924).
While the FBI did manage to recover several thousand of the deleted emails that were work-related and, thereby, required to be produced, no charges against Clinton were ever brought by Comey. In his July statement, he somehow divined that they were “not intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
Really? What other reason could possibly exist? Clinton was just cleaning out her mailbox?
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton f**grantly and shamelessly ignored the law. A special counsel must be appointed to reopen the Clinton email case, but also to investigate her role in what appears to be: a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme in selling 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia; payments to Russian agents by the Clinton campaign to obtain the salacious Fusion GPS dossier on Donald Trump; and the “rigging” of the Democratic nomination process in Clinton’s race against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other candidates.
The scope of the special counsel’s probe must also include the inexplicable and indefensible decisions that Comey made in exonerating Clinton in the email scandal and whether Loretta Lynch influenced the outcome.
It has been more than three months since the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that a special counsel be named. More recently, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reiterated the appeal.
Any delay of justice is injustice. Those who abuse and subvert the law must always be held accountable.
Neither Clinton nor Comey are above the law, although they may think so.
no propaganda please wrote:
THE CLINTONS
8 hours ago
Gregg Jarrett: Did Comey obstruct justice by protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution?
New questions over Comey's handling of the Clinton probe
Report: FBI confirms the former director drafted a letter exonerating Hillary before the investigation was complete; Ron Hosko explains on 'The Story.'
Former FBI Director James Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton was always improbable. Now it seems impossible.
The Espionage Act makes it a crime to mishandle classified documents “through gross negligence” (18 USC 793-f). Punishment upon conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
With 110 emails on Clinton’s private server that were classified at the time they were sent or received, the Democratic nominee for president could have been prosecuted on 110 separate felony counts. Yet Comey scuttled the case.
But a story in The Hill this week by John Solomon says a newly discovered document shows that then-FBI Director Comey authored a draft statement accusing Clinton of mishandling classified documents and being “grossly negligent.”
The document was confirmed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written a full two months before Clinton was ever interviewed by the FBI.
However, sometime later the words “gross negligence” were edited out with red lines. The words “extremely careless” were substituted. This would appear to show that Comey knew Clinton violated the law but subsequently resolved to conjure a way to exonerate her by altering the language.
Comey didn’t do a very good job. The two terms are largely synonymous under the law.
Many standard jury instructions, such as those in California and elsewhere, say the two terms mean the same thing. That is, gross negligence is an extreme departure from ordinary care. In other words, extremely careless behavior.
Either Comey is not well-versed in the law or he sought to draw a fine distinction where none exists. Nevertheless, he employed it as an excuse to protect Clinton from prosecution in a case that should have rendered 110 criminal charges against her.
Comey must now testify under oath to explain why he would write a statement of exoneration well before all the facts were known and why he would change the language to clear Clinton in the face of incriminating evidence that she mishandled classified material through gross negligence.
Did Comey seek to absolve Clinton for political reasons? Was he pressured to do so by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or others? And why exactly did he take it upon himself to usurp the authority of the Justice Department in clearing Clinton?
If Comey prevented the prosecution of Clinton – even though there was sufficient and compelling evidence to indict her – then such interference or intervention in the due administration of the law would constitute obstruction of justice by Comey.
But that is not all. Comey blatantly misinterpreted another criminal statute, also under the Espionage Act, which Clinton appeared to have violated.
Under 18 USC 978, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” mishandle classified information. Yet, in his infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, Comey declared that Clinton never “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
Comey was wrong. That is not the legal standard. The standard is whether Clinton committed intentional acts that violated the law. Clearly, she intended to set up a private server, and she intended to use it exclusively for all her communications as secretary of state, which would necessarily include classified documents.
By Clinton’s own admission, she deliberately created her personal and unauthorized server for the sake of convenience. She never set up a government email address for any other communications, as the FBI confirmed. These are the intentional acts that placed classified material in an unauthorized and vulnerable location.
Even if we accept Comey’s tortured interpretation that a person must intend to violate the law, the evidence is conclusive that Clinton knew she was committing crimes. How do we know? On January, 22, 2009, she signed a document titled “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” which states in very plain language the following:
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation or violations, of U.S. criminal laws.”
A second document signed by Clinton that same day acknowledged that she had received a comprehensive security briefing that instructed her on all the applicable laws involving sensitive information and classified materials and how they must be kept secure.
Clinton can hardly claim amnesia as a defense, since she sent an order to all State Department employees two years later, on June 28, 2011, cautioning them not to do what she was doing in violating the law. She stated in her order: “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”
Yet Clinton’s mendacity is breathtaking. Congress issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and produce emails. Three weeks later, on March 25, some 33,000 of her emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those communications were relevant to the subpoena, since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called “BleachBit.”
The act of defying a congressional subpoena is audacious at best – criminal at worst.
Destruction of records in any federal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice (18 USC 1519) and a violation of the Federal Records Act (18 USC 2071) and the Public Officers Law (18 USC 1924).
While the FBI did manage to recover several thousand of the deleted emails that were work-related and, thereby, required to be produced, no charges against Clinton were ever brought by Comey. In his July statement, he somehow divined that they were “not intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
Really? What other reason could possibly exist? Clinton was just cleaning out her mailbox?
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton f**grantly and shamelessly ignored the law. A special counsel must be appointed to reopen the Clinton email case, but also to investigate her role in what appears to be: a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme in selling 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia; payments to Russian agents by the Clinton campaign to obtain the salacious Fusion GPS dossier on Donald Trump; and the “rigging” of the Democratic nomination process in Clinton’s race against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other candidates.
The scope of the special counsel’s probe must also include the inexplicable and indefensible decisions that Comey made in exonerating Clinton in the email scandal and whether Loretta Lynch influenced the outcome.
It has been more than three months since the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that a special counsel be named. More recently, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reiterated the appeal.
Any delay of justice is injustice. Those who abuse and subvert the law must always be held accountable.
Neither Clinton nor Comey are above the law, although they may think so.
THE CLINTONS br 8 hours ago br Gregg Jarrett: Did ... (
show quote)
If Comey went after Hillary like Mueller is going after President Trump they would have locked her up, thrown away the key, and welded the door shut.
YES
The bulk of our government upper echelon has been politicized .
Ms.Clinton screeched for a taxi cab driver, Edward Snowden, and other little people to be prosecuted.
Now, she should lead the way into the halls of justice.
Along with her:
The FBI Evidence Custodian and his/her supervisor(s);
FBI Agents and their supervisor(s) that handed the evidence for its destruction.
Clinton's attorneys should be indicted and prosecuted to nth degree for destroying evidence.
James Comey and whoever else is shaken out of the woodwork.
Godly individuals, outside experienced investigators are the key in stirring the pot... can't be bribed.
The ingredients are there, they just need preparing and to be properly cooked.
If high officials enter the kitchen; tag them for the next course.
If not, its another charade for the Elites.
If found guilty:
$60 million of the Clinton's Foundation should be distributed to the Haitians; $150 million distributed to Native Americans; $10 million to the ranchers' families that were devastated. Remainder to military service members' and Police Officers' spouses and children; and disabled veterans returning from the Mid-East.
no propaganda please wrote:
THE CLINTONS
8 hours ago
Gregg Jarrett: Did Comey obstruct justice by protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution?
New questions over Comey's handling of the Clinton probe
Report: FBI confirms the former director drafted a letter exonerating Hillary before the investigation was complete; Ron Hosko explains on 'The Story.'
Former FBI Director James Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton was always improbable. Now it seems impossible.
The Espionage Act makes it a crime to mishandle classified documents “through gross negligence” (18 USC 793-f). Punishment upon conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
With 110 emails on Clinton’s private server that were classified at the time they were sent or received, the Democratic nominee for president could have been prosecuted on 110 separate felony counts. Yet Comey scuttled the case.
But a story in The Hill this week by John Solomon says a newly discovered document shows that then-FBI Director Comey authored a draft statement accusing Clinton of mishandling classified documents and being “grossly negligent.”
The document was confirmed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written a full two months before Clinton was ever interviewed by the FBI.
However, sometime later the words “gross negligence” were edited out with red lines. The words “extremely careless” were substituted. This would appear to show that Comey knew Clinton violated the law but subsequently resolved to conjure a way to exonerate her by altering the language.
Comey didn’t do a very good job. The two terms are largely synonymous under the law.
Many standard jury instructions, such as those in California and elsewhere, say the two terms mean the same thing. That is, gross negligence is an extreme departure from ordinary care. In other words, extremely careless behavior.
Either Comey is not well-versed in the law or he sought to draw a fine distinction where none exists. Nevertheless, he employed it as an excuse to protect Clinton from prosecution in a case that should have rendered 110 criminal charges against her.
Comey must now testify under oath to explain why he would write a statement of exoneration well before all the facts were known and why he would change the language to clear Clinton in the face of incriminating evidence that she mishandled classified material through gross negligence.
Did Comey seek to absolve Clinton for political reasons? Was he pressured to do so by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or others? And why exactly did he take it upon himself to usurp the authority of the Justice Department in clearing Clinton?
If Comey prevented the prosecution of Clinton – even though there was sufficient and compelling evidence to indict her – then such interference or intervention in the due administration of the law would constitute obstruction of justice by Comey.
But that is not all. Comey blatantly misinterpreted another criminal statute, also under the Espionage Act, which Clinton appeared to have violated.
Under 18 USC 978, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” mishandle classified information. Yet, in his infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, Comey declared that Clinton never “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
Comey was wrong. That is not the legal standard. The standard is whether Clinton committed intentional acts that violated the law. Clearly, she intended to set up a private server, and she intended to use it exclusively for all her communications as secretary of state, which would necessarily include classified documents.
By Clinton’s own admission, she deliberately created her personal and unauthorized server for the sake of convenience. She never set up a government email address for any other communications, as the FBI confirmed. These are the intentional acts that placed classified material in an unauthorized and vulnerable location.
Even if we accept Comey’s tortured interpretation that a person must intend to violate the law, the evidence is conclusive that Clinton knew she was committing crimes. How do we know? On January, 22, 2009, she signed a document titled “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” which states in very plain language the following:
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation or violations, of U.S. criminal laws.”
A second document signed by Clinton that same day acknowledged that she had received a comprehensive security briefing that instructed her on all the applicable laws involving sensitive information and classified materials and how they must be kept secure.
Clinton can hardly claim amnesia as a defense, since she sent an order to all State Department employees two years later, on June 28, 2011, cautioning them not to do what she was doing in violating the law. She stated in her order: “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”
Yet Clinton’s mendacity is breathtaking. Congress issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and produce emails. Three weeks later, on March 25, some 33,000 of her emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those communications were relevant to the subpoena, since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called “BleachBit.”
The act of defying a congressional subpoena is audacious at best – criminal at worst.
Destruction of records in any federal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice (18 USC 1519) and a violation of the Federal Records Act (18 USC 2071) and the Public Officers Law (18 USC 1924).
While the FBI did manage to recover several thousand of the deleted emails that were work-related and, thereby, required to be produced, no charges against Clinton were ever brought by Comey. In his July statement, he somehow divined that they were “not intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
Really? What other reason could possibly exist? Clinton was just cleaning out her mailbox?
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton f**grantly and shamelessly ignored the law. A special counsel must be appointed to reopen the Clinton email case, but also to investigate her role in what appears to be: a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme in selling 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia; payments to Russian agents by the Clinton campaign to obtain the salacious Fusion GPS dossier on Donald Trump; and the “rigging” of the Democratic nomination process in Clinton’s race against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other candidates.
The scope of the special counsel’s probe must also include the inexplicable and indefensible decisions that Comey made in exonerating Clinton in the email scandal and whether Loretta Lynch influenced the outcome.
It has been more than three months since the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that a special counsel be named. More recently, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reiterated the appeal.
Any delay of justice is injustice. Those who abuse and subvert the law must always be held accountable.
Neither Clinton nor Comey are above the law, although they may think so.
THE CLINTONS br 8 hours ago br Gregg Jarrett: Did ... (
show quote)
He didn't protect her from prosecution--he recommended against it. Lynch, could have done anything she wanted to do regardless of how Comey recommended...
First, all conversations on government planes are recorded. There is a recording of the Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting which needs to be made available. Jeff Sessions needs to be replaced. As far as I'm concerned, he's guilty of obstruction by not doing his job and investigating these crimes against our country that have been perpetrated by the Clintons, Obama, Comey, Rosenstein, Holder, Lynch, Mueller (for covering up the Uranium One deal and hand delivering yellow cake to the Russians, Rice, Powers etc. etc. etc. It is travesty that Sessions refuses to appoint a special prosecutor and refuses to investigate these crimes against our country. It makes one wonder if he is being paid off or blackmailed and that's why he isn't doing anything.
Is a hog's ass pork; do the bear s**t in the woods,
no propaganda please wrote:
THE CLINTONS
8 hours ago
Gregg Jarrett: Did Comey obstruct justice by protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution?
New questions over Comey's handling of the Clinton probe
Report: FBI confirms the former director drafted a letter exonerating Hillary before the investigation was complete; Ron Hosko explains on 'The Story.'
Former FBI Director James Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton was always improbable. Now it seems impossible.
The Espionage Act makes it a crime to mishandle classified documents “through gross negligence” (18 USC 793-f). Punishment upon conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
With 110 emails on Clinton’s private server that were classified at the time they were sent or received, the Democratic nominee for president could have been prosecuted on 110 separate felony counts. Yet Comey scuttled the case.
But a story in The Hill this week by John Solomon says a newly discovered document shows that then-FBI Director Comey authored a draft statement accusing Clinton of mishandling classified documents and being “grossly negligent.”
The document was confirmed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written a full two months before Clinton was ever interviewed by the FBI.
However, sometime later the words “gross negligence” were edited out with red lines. The words “extremely careless” were substituted. This would appear to show that Comey knew Clinton violated the law but subsequently resolved to conjure a way to exonerate her by altering the language.
Comey didn’t do a very good job. The two terms are largely synonymous under the law.
Many standard jury instructions, such as those in California and elsewhere, say the two terms mean the same thing. That is, gross negligence is an extreme departure from ordinary care. In other words, extremely careless behavior.
Either Comey is not well-versed in the law or he sought to draw a fine distinction where none exists. Nevertheless, he employed it as an excuse to protect Clinton from prosecution in a case that should have rendered 110 criminal charges against her.
Comey must now testify under oath to explain why he would write a statement of exoneration well before all the facts were known and why he would change the language to clear Clinton in the face of incriminating evidence that she mishandled classified material through gross negligence.
Did Comey seek to absolve Clinton for political reasons? Was he pressured to do so by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or others? And why exactly did he take it upon himself to usurp the authority of the Justice Department in clearing Clinton?
If Comey prevented the prosecution of Clinton – even though there was sufficient and compelling evidence to indict her – then such interference or intervention in the due administration of the law would constitute obstruction of justice by Comey.
But that is not all. Comey blatantly misinterpreted another criminal statute, also under the Espionage Act, which Clinton appeared to have violated.
Under 18 USC 978, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” mishandle classified information. Yet, in his infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, Comey declared that Clinton never “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
Comey was wrong. That is not the legal standard. The standard is whether Clinton committed intentional acts that violated the law. Clearly, she intended to set up a private server, and she intended to use it exclusively for all her communications as secretary of state, which would necessarily include classified documents.
By Clinton’s own admission, she deliberately created her personal and unauthorized server for the sake of convenience. She never set up a government email address for any other communications, as the FBI confirmed. These are the intentional acts that placed classified material in an unauthorized and vulnerable location.
Even if we accept Comey’s tortured interpretation that a person must intend to violate the law, the evidence is conclusive that Clinton knew she was committing crimes. How do we know? On January, 22, 2009, she signed a document titled “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” which states in very plain language the following:
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation or violations, of U.S. criminal laws.”
A second document signed by Clinton that same day acknowledged that she had received a comprehensive security briefing that instructed her on all the applicable laws involving sensitive information and classified materials and how they must be kept secure.
Clinton can hardly claim amnesia as a defense, since she sent an order to all State Department employees two years later, on June 28, 2011, cautioning them not to do what she was doing in violating the law. She stated in her order: “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”
Yet Clinton’s mendacity is breathtaking. Congress issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and produce emails. Three weeks later, on March 25, some 33,000 of her emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those communications were relevant to the subpoena, since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called “BleachBit.”
The act of defying a congressional subpoena is audacious at best – criminal at worst.
Destruction of records in any federal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice (18 USC 1519) and a violation of the Federal Records Act (18 USC 2071) and the Public Officers Law (18 USC 1924).
While the FBI did manage to recover several thousand of the deleted emails that were work-related and, thereby, required to be produced, no charges against Clinton were ever brought by Comey. In his July statement, he somehow divined that they were “not intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
Really? What other reason could possibly exist? Clinton was just cleaning out her mailbox?
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton f**grantly and shamelessly ignored the law. A special counsel must be appointed to reopen the Clinton email case, but also to investigate her role in what appears to be: a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme in selling 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia; payments to Russian agents by the Clinton campaign to obtain the salacious Fusion GPS dossier on Donald Trump; and the “rigging” of the Democratic nomination process in Clinton’s race against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other candidates.
The scope of the special counsel’s probe must also include the inexplicable and indefensible decisions that Comey made in exonerating Clinton in the email scandal and whether Loretta Lynch influenced the outcome.
It has been more than three months since the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that a special counsel be named. More recently, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reiterated the appeal.
Any delay of justice is injustice. Those who abuse and subvert the law must always be held accountable.
Neither Clinton nor Comey are above the law, although they may think so.
THE CLINTONS br 8 hours ago br Gregg Jarrett: Did ... (
show quote)
no propaganda please wrote:
THE CLINTONS
8 hours ago
Gregg Jarrett: Did Comey obstruct justice by protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution?
New questions over Comey's handling of the Clinton probe
Report: FBI confirms the former director drafted a letter exonerating Hillary before the investigation was complete; Ron Hosko explains on 'The Story.'
Former FBI Director James Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton was always improbable. Now it seems impossible.
The Espionage Act makes it a crime to mishandle classified documents “through gross negligence” (18 USC 793-f). Punishment upon conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
With 110 emails on Clinton’s private server that were classified at the time they were sent or received, the Democratic nominee for president could have been prosecuted on 110 separate felony counts. Yet Comey scuttled the case.
But a story in The Hill this week by John Solomon says a newly discovered document shows that then-FBI Director Comey authored a draft statement accusing Clinton of mishandling classified documents and being “grossly negligent.”
The document was confirmed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written a full two months before Clinton was ever interviewed by the FBI.
However, sometime later the words “gross negligence” were edited out with red lines. The words “extremely careless” were substituted. This would appear to show that Comey knew Clinton violated the law but subsequently resolved to conjure a way to exonerate her by altering the language.
Comey didn’t do a very good job. The two terms are largely synonymous under the law.
Many standard jury instructions, such as those in California and elsewhere, say the two terms mean the same thing. That is, gross negligence is an extreme departure from ordinary care. In other words, extremely careless behavior.
Either Comey is not well-versed in the law or he sought to draw a fine distinction where none exists. Nevertheless, he employed it as an excuse to protect Clinton from prosecution in a case that should have rendered 110 criminal charges against her.
Comey must now testify under oath to explain why he would write a statement of exoneration well before all the facts were known and why he would change the language to clear Clinton in the face of incriminating evidence that she mishandled classified material through gross negligence.
Did Comey seek to absolve Clinton for political reasons? Was he pressured to do so by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or others? And why exactly did he take it upon himself to usurp the authority of the Justice Department in clearing Clinton?
If Comey prevented the prosecution of Clinton – even though there was sufficient and compelling evidence to indict her – then such interference or intervention in the due administration of the law would constitute obstruction of justice by Comey.
But that is not all. Comey blatantly misinterpreted another criminal statute, also under the Espionage Act, which Clinton appeared to have violated.
Under 18 USC 978, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” mishandle classified information. Yet, in his infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, Comey declared that Clinton never “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
Comey was wrong. That is not the legal standard. The standard is whether Clinton committed intentional acts that violated the law. Clearly, she intended to set up a private server, and she intended to use it exclusively for all her communications as secretary of state, which would necessarily include classified documents.
By Clinton’s own admission, she deliberately created her personal and unauthorized server for the sake of convenience. She never set up a government email address for any other communications, as the FBI confirmed. These are the intentional acts that placed classified material in an unauthorized and vulnerable location.
Even if we accept Comey’s tortured interpretation that a person must intend to violate the law, the evidence is conclusive that Clinton knew she was committing crimes. How do we know? On January, 22, 2009, she signed a document titled “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” which states in very plain language the following:
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation or violations, of U.S. criminal laws.”
A second document signed by Clinton that same day acknowledged that she had received a comprehensive security briefing that instructed her on all the applicable laws involving sensitive information and classified materials and how they must be kept secure.
Clinton can hardly claim amnesia as a defense, since she sent an order to all State Department employees two years later, on June 28, 2011, cautioning them not to do what she was doing in violating the law. She stated in her order: “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”
Yet Clinton’s mendacity is breathtaking. Congress issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and produce emails. Three weeks later, on March 25, some 33,000 of her emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those communications were relevant to the subpoena, since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called “BleachBit.”
The act of defying a congressional subpoena is audacious at best – criminal at worst.
Destruction of records in any federal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice (18 USC 1519) and a violation of the Federal Records Act (18 USC 2071) and the Public Officers Law (18 USC 1924).
While the FBI did manage to recover several thousand of the deleted emails that were work-related and, thereby, required to be produced, no charges against Clinton were ever brought by Comey. In his July statement, he somehow divined that they were “not intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
Really? What other reason could possibly exist? Clinton was just cleaning out her mailbox?
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton f**grantly and shamelessly ignored the law. A special counsel must be appointed to reopen the Clinton email case, but also to investigate her role in what appears to be: a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme in selling 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia; payments to Russian agents by the Clinton campaign to obtain the salacious Fusion GPS dossier on Donald Trump; and the “rigging” of the Democratic nomination process in Clinton’s race against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other candidates.
The scope of the special counsel’s probe must also include the inexplicable and indefensible decisions that Comey made in exonerating Clinton in the email scandal and whether Loretta Lynch influenced the outcome.
It has been more than three months since the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that a special counsel be named. More recently, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reiterated the appeal.
Any delay of justice is injustice. Those who abuse and subvert the law must always be held accountable.
Neither Clinton nor Comey are above the law, although they may think so.
THE CLINTONS br 8 hours ago br Gregg Jarrett: Did ... (
show quote)
====================
Comey was not only negligent of his job. But he intentionally violated the law, ignored and covered-up all the criminal activities of Hillary Clinton. His original investigation resulted to evidence of "gross negligence" as originally written on his report.
Ignored all the crimes of Hillary Clinton. Despite of that 2 months before the investigation ended, he wrote a memo exonerating Clinton. That was another violation. It was not his job to exonerate Clinton. Then the Tarmac meeting for Bill and Lynch. Lynch then decided to term the crimes of Hillary "a matter". All these acts were in collusion among these people. With a promise from Comey that Lynch will continue her DOJ job, as well as Comey, the moment Hillary becomes the president. The criminal syndicate could have continued if Hillary won the e******n.
Radiance3 wrote:
====================
Comey was not only negligent of his job. But he intentionally violated the law, ignored and covered-up all the criminal activities of Hillary Clinton. His original investigation resulted to evidence of "gross negligence" as originally written on his report.
Ignored all the crimes of Hillary Clinton. Despite of that 2 months before the investigation ended, he wrote a memo exonerating Clinton. That was another violation. It was not his job to exonerate Clinton. Then the Tarmac meeting for Bill and Lynch. Lynch then decided to term the crimes of Hillary "a matter". All these acts were in collusion among these people. With a promise from Comey that Lynch will continue her DOJ job, as well as Comey, the moment Hillary becomes the president. The criminal syndicate could have continued if Hillary won the e******n.
==================== br Comey was not only neglige... (
show quote)
Yes! And by doing this, he committed gross dereliction of duty.
PeterS wrote:
He didn't protect her from prosecution--he recommended against it. Lynch, could have done anything she wanted to do regardless of how Comey recommended...
That's exactly right. He just prevalidated her decision not to prosecute. He already knew she wouldn't.
Yada,Yada,Yada,Yada,,,,,Nothing is going to happen,to anyone of these mmiscreants,,,,as Ive said Many times....The FIX IS IN,THE FIX IS IN,THE FIX IS IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
no propaganda please wrote:
THE CLINTONS
8 hours ago
Gregg Jarrett: Did Comey obstruct justice by protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution?
New questions over Comey's handling of the Clinton probe
Report: FBI confirms the former director drafted a letter exonerating Hillary before the investigation was complete; Ron Hosko explains on 'The Story.'
Former FBI Director James Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton was always improbable. Now it seems impossible.
The Espionage Act makes it a crime to mishandle classified documents “through gross negligence” (18 USC 793-f). Punishment upon conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
With 110 emails on Clinton’s private server that were classified at the time they were sent or received, the Democratic nominee for president could have been prosecuted on 110 separate felony counts. Yet Comey scuttled the case.
But a story in The Hill this week by John Solomon says a newly discovered document shows that then-FBI Director Comey authored a draft statement accusing Clinton of mishandling classified documents and being “grossly negligent.”
The document was confirmed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written a full two months before Clinton was ever interviewed by the FBI.
However, sometime later the words “gross negligence” were edited out with red lines. The words “extremely careless” were substituted. This would appear to show that Comey knew Clinton violated the law but subsequently resolved to conjure a way to exonerate her by altering the language.
Comey didn’t do a very good job. The two terms are largely synonymous under the law.
Many standard jury instructions, such as those in California and elsewhere, say the two terms mean the same thing. That is, gross negligence is an extreme departure from ordinary care. In other words, extremely careless behavior.
Either Comey is not well-versed in the law or he sought to draw a fine distinction where none exists. Nevertheless, he employed it as an excuse to protect Clinton from prosecution in a case that should have rendered 110 criminal charges against her.
Comey must now testify under oath to explain why he would write a statement of exoneration well before all the facts were known and why he would change the language to clear Clinton in the face of incriminating evidence that she mishandled classified material through gross negligence.
Did Comey seek to absolve Clinton for political reasons? Was he pressured to do so by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or others? And why exactly did he take it upon himself to usurp the authority of the Justice Department in clearing Clinton?
If Comey prevented the prosecution of Clinton – even though there was sufficient and compelling evidence to indict her – then such interference or intervention in the due administration of the law would constitute obstruction of justice by Comey.
But that is not all. Comey blatantly misinterpreted another criminal statute, also under the Espionage Act, which Clinton appeared to have violated.
Under 18 USC 978, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” mishandle classified information. Yet, in his infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, Comey declared that Clinton never “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”
Comey was wrong. That is not the legal standard. The standard is whether Clinton committed intentional acts that violated the law. Clearly, she intended to set up a private server, and she intended to use it exclusively for all her communications as secretary of state, which would necessarily include classified documents.
By Clinton’s own admission, she deliberately created her personal and unauthorized server for the sake of convenience. She never set up a government email address for any other communications, as the FBI confirmed. These are the intentional acts that placed classified material in an unauthorized and vulnerable location.
Even if we accept Comey’s tortured interpretation that a person must intend to violate the law, the evidence is conclusive that Clinton knew she was committing crimes. How do we know? On January, 22, 2009, she signed a document titled “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” which states in very plain language the following:
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation or violations, of U.S. criminal laws.”
A second document signed by Clinton that same day acknowledged that she had received a comprehensive security briefing that instructed her on all the applicable laws involving sensitive information and classified materials and how they must be kept secure.
Clinton can hardly claim amnesia as a defense, since she sent an order to all State Department employees two years later, on June 28, 2011, cautioning them not to do what she was doing in violating the law. She stated in her order: “Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”
Yet Clinton’s mendacity is breathtaking. Congress issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and produce emails. Three weeks later, on March 25, some 33,000 of her emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those communications were relevant to the subpoena, since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called “BleachBit.”
The act of defying a congressional subpoena is audacious at best – criminal at worst.
Destruction of records in any federal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice (18 USC 1519) and a violation of the Federal Records Act (18 USC 2071) and the Public Officers Law (18 USC 1924).
While the FBI did manage to recover several thousand of the deleted emails that were work-related and, thereby, required to be produced, no charges against Clinton were ever brought by Comey. In his July statement, he somehow divined that they were “not intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
Really? What other reason could possibly exist? Clinton was just cleaning out her mailbox?
There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton f**grantly and shamelessly ignored the law. A special counsel must be appointed to reopen the Clinton email case, but also to investigate her role in what appears to be: a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme in selling 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia; payments to Russian agents by the Clinton campaign to obtain the salacious Fusion GPS dossier on Donald Trump; and the “rigging” of the Democratic nomination process in Clinton’s race against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other candidates.
The scope of the special counsel’s probe must also include the inexplicable and indefensible decisions that Comey made in exonerating Clinton in the email scandal and whether Loretta Lynch influenced the outcome.
It has been more than three months since the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that a special counsel be named. More recently, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reiterated the appeal.
Any delay of justice is injustice. Those who abuse and subvert the law must always be held accountable.
Neither Clinton nor Comey are above the law, although they may think so.
THE CLINTONS br 8 hours ago br Gregg Jarrett: Did ... (
show quote)
Great article! I put it up on my Facebook page, so my liberal friends can get educated.
H Clinton will never go to jail and will continued on her bull s**t programs that will destroy the USA the way of life ! These i***ts want the NWO in place because Trump trying his best not to do it ! Now the i***t Democrats introduce a gun bill to get rig of our guns but not so fast !
Director of investigation
Selecting a Director of this investigation is crucial, one that would conduct an impartial, proper investigation without the influence of political special interest.
Former Sheriff David Clarke, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary, would be my choice to manage and facilitate this investigation.
Allow Mr. Clarke the flexibility to recruit and run with a select group of proficient investigators from local and state agencies.
I think, Mr. Clark has the courage to stand strong with integrity.
Investigation
Start at the bottom, Custodian of Evidence. Every diminutive detail is significant.
Once the foundation cracks; I believe, most FBI Agents are honest.
They are like most people trying to make a living and provide for their families.
When the chains of political oppression are removed, most will cooperate.
Other Agents will weigh their options, then cooperate instead of facing criminal charges and prison.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
