FBI Director Comey Proves The Fix Was In

[Moot]

By whom? The acolytes of this damned Marxist liar whose character is just as low as hers?

By 50% to 70% of the public. It her ratings were high the entire time she Sec. of State...

If you have to lie about Hillary, then what does that make you?

 

[TheHammer]

Apparently, neither can you. But there is difference according to the law and what Hillary did does not rise to the level of a felony.

Really, and when did congress do that? Please provide a link.

Did she "intend" to have a private e-mail server created for her in defiance of the rules of the State Department as related by the Inspector General who said such setups are not allowed by State Department rules and she would have never gotten it approved had she even requested it.

There's your "intent" right there even though no intent is required. Mishandling of classified materials is a felony for anybody except Hillary Rotten Clinton. Comey, Lynch and Slick Willy Clinton put the fix in. The Clintons apparently have something on both Comey and Lynch and or promises were made should Hillary get elected.

 

[Moot]

Did she "intend" to have a private e-mail server created for her in defiance of the rules of the State Department as related by the Inspector General who said such setups are not allowed by State Department rules and she would have never gotten it approved had she even requested it.

There's your "intent" right there even though no intent is required. Mishandling of classified materials is a felony for anybody except Hillary Rotten Clinton. Comey, Lynch and Slick Willy Clinton put the fix in. The Clintons apparently have something on both Comey and Lynch and or promises were made should Hillary get elected.

It was "unusual" but it wasn't against the rules to have a private server or a private email account. Her intent was for "convenience"...not to commit a crime.

 

[matchlight]

Apparently, neither can you.

That makes no sense. Why on earth would I be trying to explain the difference in meaning between two phrases I had just said meant exactly the same thing? It was you who asserted that "extremely careless"--the phrase Director Comey used to describe Mrs. Clinton's actions--does not mean the same thing as "grossly negligent." I challenged you to explain just what that supposed difference in meaning is. You can't, because there IS no such difference, so now you try to dodge the question again.

But there is difference according to the law

Really? What law, exactly? Please cite the law which says there is a difference in meaning between acting in an "extremely careless" way and acting with "gross negligence." Of course there is no such law, because the two mean exactly the same thing. Directory Comey acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton, in her handling of those emails, acted in the very way that makes a person guilty of violating section 793(f).

Really, and when did congress do that? Please provide a link.

Yes, really. Congress saw fit to make gross negligence the standard of guilt for the crime defined in U.S. Code Title 18, section 793(f), which is a small portion of the Espionage Act of 1917. Here is the link to the federal code, and I will also reproduce the text:

OLRC Home

(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.


The text could not make more clear that no intent is required for this felony. It may be committed in two ways: 1) through gross negligence; or 2) through failure to report the mishandling of any of the documents described. The first of these is the one which applies to Mrs. Clinton's actions.

 

[matchlight]

By 50% to 70% of the public. It her ratings were high the entire time she Sec. of State...

If you have to lie about Hillary, then what does that make you?

It doesn't surprise me to see that quite a few people on these forums who share your political views make a habit of directly calling other posters liars. I think you'll find that is a violation of the civility rules of this site. It's also a telltale sign of a weak game. If you knew more and were better at making reasoned arguments, you would trust your arguments to win debates, instead of relying on ad hominem remarks as a crutch.

Her favorability ratings, by themselves, mean very little. What matters for politicians is having far more people take a favorable view of them than an unfavorable one. Clinton's problem is that the gap is not very big, as your chart shows. Depending on what time you look at--and because your chart is three years out of date, it does not reflect her email problems--there are almost as many people who have an unfavorable opinion of her as a favorable one, and at some points there are even more.

 

[Moot]

That makes no sense. Why on earth would I be trying to explain the difference in meaning between two phrases I had just said meant exactly the same thing? It was you who asserted that "extremely careless"--the phrase Director Comey used to describe Mrs. Clinton's actions--does not mean the same thing as "grossly negligent." I challenged you to explain just what that supposed difference in meaning is. You can't, because there IS no such difference, so now you try to dodge the question again.

That explains why you can't explain why they aren't the same. lol

From Black's Law Dictionary:

What is CARELESSNESS? Negligence: failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.

What is GROSS NEGLIGENCE? A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard. Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights are examples. There is no specific legal definition, but if one drives recklessly and kills another, it is applied as involuntary manslaughter.

What is DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE? The determination as to negligence and whether it was slight, moderate or wilful. The more wilful means a greater penalty will be imposed.

What is RECKLESS DISREGARD? Indifferent and conscious contempt of others' reputation or rights, the dangerous consequences of one's action. In defamation cases, the defendant's malicious intent is judged against the standard of 'reckless disregard for truth.'​

Carelessness is not legally the same as than gross negligence.

Really? What law, exactly? Please cite the law which says there is a difference in meaning between acting in an "extremely careless" way and acting with "gross negligence." Of course there is no such law, because the two mean exactly the same thing. Directory Comey acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton, in her handling of those emails, acted in the very way that makes a person guilty of violating section 793(f).

See legal definitions above.

Yes, really. Congress saw fit to make gross negligence the standard of guilt for the crime defined in U.S. Code Title 18, section 793(f), which is a small portion of the Espionage Act of 1917. Here is the link to the federal code, and I will also reproduce the text:

OLRC Home

(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.


The text could not make more clear that no intent is required for this felony. It may be committed in two ways: 1) through gross negligence; or 2) through failure to report the mishandling of any of the documents described. The first of these is the one which applies to Mrs. Clinton's actions.

To prove her guilt for espionage...the plaintiff must prove:

1. Hillary acted with "gross negligence"....not "carelessness" (see above definitions for difference).

2. Prove that Hillary's emails were delivered to someone she did not trust....which means proving that her server was hacked.

3. Prove that her actions caused severe harm to other persons, property or the country. No one was hurt or killed because of Hillary's emails


Like Comey said....there isn't a precedent for charging someone with the crime of espionage if they didn't have mens rea and actus reum....and that's what you need to prove gross negligence and neither you or the GOP have it. It would probably be easier to prove the gross negligence of congress than Hillary.

 

[Moot]

It doesn't surprise me to see that quite a few people on these forums who share your political views make a habit of directly calling other posters liars. I think you'll find that is a violation of the civility rules of this site. It's also a telltale sign of a weak game. If you knew more and were better at making reasoned arguments, you would trust your arguments to win debates, instead of relying on ad hominem remarks as a crutch.

Really, then who were you calling a "damned Marxist liar?"

 

[matchlight]

Carelessness is not legally the same as than gross negligence.

Mr. Comey did not just say that Mrs. Clinton had just shown carelessness in her handling of the emails. He said she had been "extremely careless" in handling them. Nothing you have cited even suggests that the meanings of the phrases "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent" differ in the least. Most people with common sense and a knowledge of English know they are only two ways of saying the very same thing. As her described her actions, they checked all the boxes for a violation of section 793(f). That is what makes his statement that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her for it so incongruous.

I suggest what explains the incongruity is that he knows damned well she violated 793(f), but had reason to believe that if he recommended prosecution, his dishonest superiors would rig the grand jury investigation to guarantee she would be no-billed. He would then end up as the goat, being portrayed as a relatively minor official who had out of questionable motives tried, and failed, to affect the outcome of a presidential election. Being too smart to get caught in that trap, Comey managed to craft a clever excuse for not recommending she be prosecuted.

It wouldn't be the first time an administration had fixed a prosecution. I've written in detail on other threads here about the Amerasia scandal of 1945. In that case, high officials in the Truman administration rigged a grand jury investigation to assure that a foreign service officer and several Communists he associated with were no-billed, despite overwhelming evidence the FBI had that this officer had passed secret military documents to a Communist who was in contact with foreign agents.

To prove her guilt for espionage

The title of section 793 is not "Espionage," but rather "Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information."

the plaintiff must:

2. Prove that Hillary's emails were delivered to someone she did not trust

That is false. The only place 793(f) mentions the word trust is in the phrase "in violation of his trust," meaning the duty entrusted in a person by virtue of his position. And that phrase refers to the person who "through gross negligence permits the same [i.e. any of the listed documents] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone . . ." It has nothing whatever to do with whether the person who mishandled the document trusted any other person who may have got hold of it as a result.

3. Prove that her actions caused severe harm to other persons, property or the country. No one was hurt or killed because of Hillary's emails

False again. As anyone can plainly read, 793(f) does not require proof of any such thing. No harm to anything needs to be shown--only that the person charged mishandled documents in any of the ways the section describes, or that he knew someone else had and failed to report it promptly.

Like Comey said....there isn't a precedent for charging someone with the crime of espionage if they didn't have mens rea and actus reum

Please show us where he claimed in his comments that intent was required to violate 793(f). I don't recall that he said anything like that.

and that's what you need to prove gross negligence

More nonsense. Proving someone was grossly negligent does not require proof of mens rea or actus reum. That's exactly why it's easier to prove gross negligence than to prove the bad intent usually required for a crime.

 

[matchlight]

Really, then who were you calling a "damned Marxist liar?"

As far as I know, Mrs. Clinton is not a poster on these forums, nor was I debating her. I think most people here know the difference between calling a public figure a liar and calling a poster here that you are debating a liar. Certainly the rules of this site recognize that difference.

 

[Moot]

As far as I know, Mrs. Clinton is not a poster on these forums, nor was I debating her. I think most people here know the difference between calling a public figure a liar and calling a poster here that you are debating a liar. Certainly the rules of this site recognize that difference.

It's not really your place to play moderator. So if you have a problem, report it....otherwise put on your big boy panties and move on.

 

[TheHammer]

It was "unusual" but it wasn't against the rules to have a private server or a private email account. Her intent was for "convenience"...not to commit a crime.

A State Department watchdog concluded that Hillary Clinton failed to comply with the agency’s policies on records while using a personal email server that was not — and, officials say, would never have been — approved by agency officials, according to a report released to lawmakers on Wednesday

Read more: State Dept. watchdog: Clinton violated email rules - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Her "intent" was to keep Republicans from knowing what she was doing as Secretary Of State, because she was aware that she didn't know what she was doing and she is aware that she's incompetent in any government leadership roll.