Comey the Clown: Lock him up!!
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
It does seem that way.
Of course we both know she had briefing on the handling of classified documents, most likely more than once in her career. She was a little too blase' re the risks she was taking by permitting work related communications and documents to be sent to her personal server. According to the media, other secretaries, Powell, have done this and got away with it, but frankly she failed to give the risk enough consideration. She made a big mistake.
Comey was very forth coming under oath as to why he thought he should make detailed noted of his meeting immediately after his meeting with Trump. Apparently the Senate committee was satisfied with his explanation. Probably, redacted of any classified information, his notes in this regard will be considered to be his personal property. There are several considerations that would affect that determination. My guess is that he is in the clear on that point.
There is. And Departments, agencies, and contractors that handle classified documents hire classification specialists who instruct new employees on the handling of classified documents. Once you security clearance is approved, you'll receive that training as one of the first orders of business. Interestingly, I read somewhere that the President by virtue of having been elected, is automatically cleared and is the only person who does not have to be investigated to receive a security clearance. Probably Trump received the same instructions re handling classified information as all others do.
That's what it seems like. Perhaps "don't agree with" is a little too mild. Trump, for example, is definitely a special case, if history is any guide. Clearly the law ends up being "shaded" by politics.
Most laws apply to everyone, even the President, but their enforcement seems uneven.
Yes, we can claim no intent, and we can even claim no crime was commited. We do it all the time. It is up to others to decide if in their opinion a prosecutable crime, or breaking of civil law occurred. Intent is a factor bearing on consideration whether to prosecute, the level of charges to be brought, and on sentencing in case of conviction. Precedent is a major consideration in deciding the odds of a prosecution being successful. We know that attempts to prosecute sometimes involve malfeasance and that indictments are sometimes sought for political reasons, even when there is a low probability of conviction. We've all heard, "A good prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich." The media headline that so and so is under indictment can be fatal to a politician's career. Even the suggestion that a politician may be indicted is damaging, as we have seen.
Last edited:
1. hillary being too blase about breaking national security laws is like saying bill clinton was too blase about his marriage vows.
hillary was as much a cheater as bill however, she broke national security laws so she could take millions into her foundation. For instance she sold our uranium to Russia as her foundation was taking in millions from the players involved. see the NYT article I have linked to on this site.
2. Comey has been a deceptive son of bitch since the beginning. Just because he proffered a reason for taking notes does not mean he did not have ulterior motives.
3. The legislature creates criminal laws to protect the country. When they create a law without an intent element it is done so on purpose.
So while Clinton intentionally broke multiple laws with her putting classified info on a home brew server.
lets focus on a non intent crime since you tried to focus on intent. . Non intent crimes are rare. When the legislature writes an non intent crime it does so with very good reason. In this case it is to protect national security.
(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.
===
"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. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
(You really don't have the experience to lecture us on jurisprudence. You always seem to slant it far off base. )
hillary was as much a cheater as bill however, she broke national security laws so she could take millions into her foundation. For instance she sold our uranium to Russia as her foundation was taking in millions from the players involved. see the NYT article I have linked to on this site.
2. Comey has been a deceptive son of bitch since the beginning. Just because he proffered a reason for taking notes does not mean he did not have ulterior motives.
3. The legislature creates criminal laws to protect the country. When they create a law without an intent element it is done so on purpose.
So while Clinton intentionally broke multiple laws with her putting classified info on a home brew server.
lets focus on a non intent crime since you tried to focus on intent. . Non intent crimes are rare. When the legislature writes an non intent crime it does so with very good reason. In this case it is to protect national security.
(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.
===
"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. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
(You really don't have the experience to lecture us on jurisprudence. You always seem to slant it far off base. )
Last edited:
Simple question.
Why couldn't Hillary run TWO email accounts if she wanted to break classification laws on purpose? Just use the .gov account for regular correspondence and a private account which was shielded from FOIA for the 'shady' shit. What's the logic in getting unsolicited unmarked classified information that would have been illegal on a .gov account as well (state.gov is an unclassified system)
Your ramblings makes no sense.
And Hillary sold uranium to Russians? Even NYT doesn't say that but keep peddling FAKE NEWS.
Are there no intelligent Cons left, everyone of them is peddling absolute horse crap.
you are really hurting if you have to act like you just made an important point.
so while I don't know why she did not hide her crimes better... I do have one answer that I think is quite plausible... because I loved my blackberry back then.
I remember going into the store and asking if I could have multiple email accounts. I wanted one account for work and one for personal. I was told Blackberry did not support 2 email accounts on one device back then.
( I just read they did not have that capability until 2013.)
so while I don't know why she did not hide her crimes better... I do have one answer that I think is quite plausible... because I loved my blackberry back then.
I remember going into the store and asking if I could have multiple email accounts. I wanted one account for work and one for personal. I was told Blackberry did not support 2 email accounts on one device back then.
( I just read they did not have that capability until 2013.)
Your posts are my proof. And, when a snowflake like you calls me a snowflake, it just isn't credible.
Wrong again.
You should have that tattooed on your forehead