New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats

[Town Heretic]

When raking FBI Director Comey over the coals questioning FBI Director Comey, South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy made reference to U.S.C. Title 18-793

(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-trey-gowdy-destroys-james-comey-over-intent/

How does this statute not apply to former First Lady/US Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Well, to start with, which part of that are you saying she did and how?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Well, to start with, which part of that are you saying she did and how?

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Oh, I am sure TH will tell you the same as I, that you are a legal rube without the proper training to read the english language or even attempt to be able to understand such complex things like the difference between intent & gross neglegence. Furthermore you will be berated for even having the audacity to comment on such things you are not properly trained to understand so, be a good gnome, stand in the garden, & look pretty.

I lookz purdy even when I'z not standin in a garden.

 

[rocketman]

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody

Or the attempt to destroy said classified information when found out that she removed it from it's proper place of custody...another felony.

 

[rocketman]

What I find very interesting is that anyone that is briefed into a classified or special program has full knowledge of their responsibilities to secure information, and signs documents attesting they understand it, including the consequences of breaking the law...there really is no fuzz there. How the FBI can even say that intent, at least intent to break the law was not reached is beyond me, she knew full well what she was doing was a crime.

 

[Town Heretic]

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody

From a Times article a couple of days ago. Because, well, why invent the wheel?

“It’s just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. “Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward.”

Comey made clear, Vladeck said, that “however much we might want federal law to make her carelessness a crime, nothing she did falls within the letter of the relevant federal criminal statutes.”

 

[aCultureWarrior]

What I find very interesting is that anyone that is briefed into a classified or special program has full knowledge of their responsibilities to secure information, and signs documents attesting they understand it, and the consequences of breaking the law...there really is no fuzz there. How the FBI can even say that intent, at least intent to break the law was not reached is beyond me, she knew full well what she was doing was a crime.

That's why in an earlier post I gave Hillary Clinton's credentials:

Former First Lady
US Senator
Secretary of State

She knew the rules.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody

From a Times article a couple of days ago. Because, well, why invent the wheel?

“It’s just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. “Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward.”

Comey made clear, Vladeck said, that “however much we might want federal law to make her carelessness a crime, nothing she did falls within the letter of the relevant federal criminal statutes.”

Check with Stephen Vladeck (since this appears to be above your pay grade) and see if Hillary Clinton violated U.S.C. Title 18-793/f-2.

(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...(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...p37-sec793.htm

 

[rocketman]

That's why in an earlier post I gave Hillary Clinton's credentials:

Former First Lady
US Senator
Secretary of State

She knew the rules.

Absolutely! It shows what a sham our justice system has become that there are not only two sets of rules but, that they have publicly announced it. Liberals think they have won something, when in actuality they have lost more than they know when the law is perverted, and at some point will be turned on them.

 

[jgarden]

Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._disagree_with_decision_not_to_indict_clinton

Why are Democrats so blind to the inherent corruption to their own party.

- inherent corruption

- a sham

- two sets of rules

- law is perverted

It should be noted that the current FBI Director is a life-long Republican!

It should also be noted that Clinton's 2 Republican predecessors, Rice and Powell, both used private accounts for government business as Secretaries of State, but GOP majorities in both the House and the Senate have mysteriously never expressed any interest concerning the possibility they may have leaked classified material.

 

[jeffblue101]

I don't think the FBI is ignoring anything. I think they're taking more into consideration. It's just not the sort of case that gets prosecuted and for the reasons given by the Comey before Congress.

It's clear that you didn't watch the entire hearing like I did. the FBI director did state directly that he is ignoring the gross negligence clause because he thinks it's unconstitutional and rarely used, the FBI director did in fact state that Hillary's actions were equivalent to the gross negligence clause. I'll link some news articles citing his words in the next post

 

[jeffblue101]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rried-1917-law-criminalizing-gross-negligence

“Is it your statement then before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) asked.

“Certainly, she should have known not to send classified information, and I think—as I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent,” Comey said.

“Do you believe that since the Department of Justice hasn’t used the statute Congress passed, it’s invalid?” Walberg asked.

“No, I think they’re worried that it’s invalid, that it would be challenged on constitutional grounds, which is why they’ve used it extraordinarily sparingly in the decades,” Comey said. In fact, the statute was only used once – in an espionage case, he said.

there you go Hillary Clinton got off on a technicality of a law being rarely used

 

[jgarden]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rried-1917-law-criminalizing-gross-negligence

there you go Hillary Clinton got off on a technicality of a law being rarely used

Why weren't Rice and Powell ever investigated - didn't they also use private accounts while serving as Secretary of State?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Why weren't Rice and Powell ever investigated - didn't they also use private accounts while serving as Secretary of State?

That being said:

Adults are talking here jgarden, i.e. go back to your toddler (liberal) playpen.

 

[Town Heretic]

Our system is fine and this isn't a liberals/conservatives anything. Comey is no partisan hack and he was right, much as it galls actual partisans.

 

[jeffblue101]

by the way Comey is bit incorrect. it's been used once in the civilian courts, 7 times in the military courts and countless times to intimidate suspects to confess to lesser charges.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/clinton-emails-comey-precedents/

There are very few published cases involving criminal prosecutions for “gross negligence” under the federal felony that Comey was considering, which is known as 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f). That doesn’t mean that no other such prosecutions have taken place; on the contrary, they almost certainly have. Uncontested guilty pleas, say, or convictions after trial in which the defendant did not bother to appeal would not result in published rulings interpreting the law. But there isn’t a way to quickly analyze the facts of such uncontested cases, to the extent they may exist.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Our system is fine and this isn't a liberals/conservatives anything. Comey is no partisan hack and he was right, much as it galls actual partisans.

James Comey didn’t want to alter the course of American political history

Why did he do it? FBI director James Comey spent 14 minutes laying out an unassailable case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified material. Then at literally the last minute, he recommended against prosecution.

Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence.” The evidence, as outlined by Comey, is overwhelming.

Clinton either sent or received 110 emails in 52 chains containing material that was classified at the time. Eight of these chains contained information that was top secret. A few of the classified emails were so marked, contrary to Clinton’s assertion that there were none.

These were stored on a home server that was even less secure than a normal Gmail account. Her communications were quite possibly compromised by hostile powers, thus jeopardizing American national security.

Read more: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/comey-721836-clinton-classified.html

 

[rocketman]

From a Times article a couple of days ago. Because, well, why invent the wheel?

“It’s just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. “Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward.”

Comey made clear, Vladeck said, that “however much we might want federal law to make her carelessness a crime, nothing she did falls within the letter of the relevant federal criminal statutes.”

That is patently false! to send, receive, or transmit classified information, otherwise sensitive information outside of approved channels is a violation of the law TH. The "Proper Place", as the law requires, is within a secure network, transmission outside of the approved network is a security violation, a law violation, and not reporting such a breach is another law violation, not to mention destroying said information without proper control or consent being illegal. Some of the e-mails Clinton was handling were SCI (Sensitive compartmentalized Information) & SAP (Special Access Programs) material which is absolutely a no-no to take outside of a SCIF or a protected network within one, my gosh you are not even supposed to discuss things relating to SCI or SAP outside of a scif. I am not sure who this guy is but, he is absolutely wrong on all counts it is a crime and Clinton knew it, Congress surely knows it, and the American people know it now even if they don't understand all the nuances of it.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's clear that you didn't watch the entire hearing like I did. the FBI director did state directly that he is ignoring the gross negligence clause because he thinks it's unconstitutional and rarely used, the FBI director did in fact state that Hillary's actions were equivalent to the gross negligence clause. I'll link some news articles citing his words in the next post

The problem with a lot of the voices I'm hearing here is summed by someone who agrees (Washington Post):

“As a non-lawyer, as a non-investigator, it would appear to me you have got a hell of a case,” an exasperated Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-Ga.) told Comey.

“I’m telling you we don’t, and I hope people take the time to understand why,” Comey responded.

Comey said that he believed Clinton was “extremely careless; I think she was negligent” but that investigators did not find evidence she intended to do wrong with her email setup.

In recent days, many have pointed to a section of the Espionage Act that allows for prosecutions of those who, through “gross negligence,” let classified information “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.”

Comey said investigators examined that charge for Clinton and her staffers but found that a prosecution would have been virtually unparalleled. Federal authorities had brought one such case in nearly a century, and the circumstances were drastically different.“No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years based on gross negligence,” Comey said.

And he's right.

 

[jeffblue101]

Why weren't Rice and Powell ever investigated - didn't they also use private accounts while serving as Secretary of State?

well rest assured if they are ever investigated, the FBI director will let them walk with no punishment even if classified information was discussed.