Re: A question for Sessions
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:50 pm
...and kept Hillary Clinton out of jail.Bob Juch wrote: This is the same FBI that is accused of helping Trump be elected.
...and kept Hillary Clinton out of jail.Bob Juch wrote: This is the same FBI that is accused of helping Trump be elected.
What kept Secretary Clinton out of jail was her failure to commit a crime. What contributed to keeping her out of the Oval Office was Director Comey's unjustified and unprecedented innuendo that new evidence of misconduct had surfaced. --BobBackInTex wrote:...and kept Hillary Clinton out of jail.Bob Juch wrote: This is the same FBI that is accused of helping Trump be elected.
For a smart guy, you sure are an idiot. Clinton committed several crimes. Comey's conclusions gave the impression that intent was a component of those crimes. It is not. Surely, you've read the actual statutes and Comey's list of what Hillary actually had done. How can an intellectual lawyer come to the conclusion that no crime was committed?Bob78164 wrote:What kept Secretary Clinton out of jail was her failure to commit a crime. What contributed to keeping her out of the Oval Office was Director Comey's unjustified and unprecedented innuendo that new evidence of misconduct had surfaced.BackInTex wrote:...and kept Hillary Clinton out of jail.Bob Juch wrote:This is the same FBI that is accused of helping Trump be elected.
Having worked with highly classified information for my entire career, I know something about this subject. Security violations do occur. We're all human and make mistakes. Consequences range from a warning to removal of security clearances and firing. The only violations prosecuted as crimes are intentionally revealing classified information to an uncleared person.Estonut wrote:For a smart guy, you sure are an idiot. Clinton committed several crimes.
While classification levels are sometimes murky (so many of Clinton's unclassified emails were classified later) the difference between Special Access and unclassified is obvious. Anyone who's had a security briefing knows that if you read an email like that on an unclassified system, you must report it, and you definitely can't reply or forward it.Director Comey wrote: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.
As Comey says, "Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities." So intent is very important. Like I said (and so does Comey), nobody is ever criminally prosecuted for unintentional security violations. But even if they won't "lock her up," her carelessness and dismissive attitude deserved to be campaign issues.Estonut wrote:Comey's conclusions gave the impression that intent was a component of those crimes. It is not.
Entire articleThe author of the article linked below wrote:18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] 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.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “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.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
Please enlighten me. Was it you or was it the staff of the Daily Wire who reviewed the hours of testimony and tons of documents to determine what Clinton did or did not do? Because that's what a jury would have to do to convict her, and that's what a grand jury would have to do, at least in part, to indict her.Estonut wrote:Entire articleThe author of the article linked below wrote:18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] 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.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “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.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
Not looking so fake now.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Yes, let's investigate all the #FAKE NEWS. Let's see if any of these allegations have any legs. But if they don't, we need to find out who leaked them and make them pay a big price.Bob78164 wrote:Well, it's not a special prosecutor but it's better than nothing. --Bob
In other news, they have decided to investigate Comey, but not Lynch to find out what happened when she met with Bill Clinton. They can knock themselves out for all I care. It's all a dog and pony show anyway. Nothing ever happens. At least when democrats get investigated.
To investigate herself for meeting with and discussing an active investigation with the spouse of the target of that investigation? Yeah, me, too.Bob78164 wrote:I really wish that Attorney General Lynch had appointed a special prosecutor before she left office. --Bob
The Senate Democratic Leader sounds like he agrees with both of you.BackInTex wrote:To investigate herself for meeting with and discussing an active investigation with the spouse of the target of that investigation? Yeah, me, too.Bob78164 wrote:I really wish that Attorney General Lynch had appointed a special prosecutor before she left office. --Bob
Senator Schumer wrote:There cannot be even the scintilla of doubt about the impartiality and fairness of the attorney general, the top law enforcement official of the land.
Told you it wouldn't stop him. I'm glad it seems to have hurt him, and I'm relieved that a special counsel was appointed. ABC is reporting that the White House was blindsided by the appointment so I have hope that the appointment process really was independent, and I have confidence in Mueller to run a competent investigation. I just wish he'd been appointed four months ago. --BobBob78164 wrote:I agree that anything done by Trump would be seen as political, but I don't think that would stop him or that it would necessarily hurt him significantly. Nor do I think that the appointment of a special prosecutor would be self-defeating. After all, the Benghazi Committee was transparently political in intent, yet it was still able to do significant damage.jarnon wrote:FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump
Any action by the Obama or Trump administration would be seen as political and would be self-defeating.
I am encouraged that Congress apparently intends to make its probe a serious one. But I'd feel better if an independent prosecutor, who won't have an incentive to go easy for political reasons, were investigating. --Bob