Co(up)mey talking like a criminal

[Slade3200]

To bad Comey did not follow the actual letter of the law when it came to Hillary Clinton's crimes.

According to Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Ok I get it. You think Hillary is a criminal and should be in jail but Comey and his team covered for her. But what about now? Trumps team is running the FBI and DOJ and they could easily open back up that investigation and throw he book at her. Why don’t they?

 

[Deleted member 61768]

To bad Comey did not follow the actual letter of the law when it came to Hillary Clinton's crimes.

According to Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Ok I get it. You think Hillary is a criminal and should be in jail but Comey and his team covered for her. But what about now? Trumps team is running the FBI and DOJ and they could easily open back up that investigation and throw he book at her. Why don’t they?

I have NO dog in this fight! As far as I am concerned if anyone commits a crime Nixon, Eric Holder (who committed several Federal crimes while in office), Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Trump, or Comey; they should be prosecuted just like anyone else. Unfortunately, they are NOT and that is CORRUPTION of the highest order and MUST BE PUT A STOP TO!!!!

 

[forkup]

I'm certainly glad you are so level headed. Being that you can question your own side, do you find anything fishy at all about how the probe started?

I'm guessing you are talking about the FISA warrant and the Steele dossier? Let's examine that talking point.
-Firstly in order to get any warrant you need probable cause, legal speak for reason to believe. Now the FISA courts typically handles sensitive cases, often with national security implications. For that reason, the rules to obtain a warrant are somewhat relaxed in FISA courts. This is something you can easily glean from the amount of applications for a warrant that are actually rejected. FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests
-Now, let's see what the FBI had when they requested the warrant, you can judge if it constitutes probable cause.
First they knew that not a few people had connections with Russia. Paul Manafort worked literally for the guy the Kremlin tried to use as a puppet in the Ukraine. Page admitted to be an agent for the Kremlin in 2013. Carter Page boasted about his Russia contacts 2 months after the FBI warned him the Kremlin was trying to recruit him as an agent
Papadopolous told an Australian diplomat that Russia had in information on Clinton A diplomat, a 'spy', and a Trump staffer walk into an upmarket London bar …
Then you have the Steele dossier. Composed by a former CIA agent who was deemed reliable all by himself. This is what we know from public record. There might even be more but this is just in the public realm.
Now tell me, in light of all that information do you think this is worth a look by the agency charged with counter espionage?
- Undoubtedly you are now gonna claim because the Steele dossier was a biased source it should not have been used. But all people who inform on other people have a biased reason to do so. Personal dislike, self-preservation, envy, etc. etc. If bias would be a reason to be acquitted , I dare to suggest that no one would ever be convicted.
- I also want to point out that as it stands there is irrefutable evidence that the Trump campaign actively sought Russian assistance in order to win the elections. The Don Jr email chain took that doubt away. So by all accounts what do you think is fishy about the probe?