Comey: ‘No reasonable prosecutor’ would have charged Clinton under ‘gross negligence’

anatta

100% recycled karma
same old crap as he other day. He can't find precedent despite the fact there was at least one last year.
He does not dispute "extreme carelessness" = gross negligence..

Why is a FBI guy making legal decisions of this fine a point? A. Because Lynch punted to him because
B. Clinton forced her hand? * that's a conspiracy theory, but one in plain sight*

Still testifying, the Republicans are still preening for the camera..Congress is a wonderful TV stage :palm:

++++

FBI Director James B. Comey said Thursday that it would have been virtually unprecedented to charge Hillary Clinton under a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information through “gross negligence.”

The case, he said, would have been just the second in nearly a century.

“No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years based on gross negligence,” he said.

Comey was testifying Thursday morning before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where he was grilled by legislators on how he concluded no charges should be brought in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system while she was secretary of state. Of particular interest was how the FBI director reconciled his assessment that Clinton was “extremely careless” with his decision not to recommend charges.

“We’re mystified and confused by the fact pattern that you laid out and the conclusions that you reached,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Comey. “It seems that there are two standards, and there’s no consequence for these types of activities and dealing in a careless way with classified information. It seems to a lot of us that the Average Joe, the average American, that if they had done what you laid out in your statement, that they’d be in handcuffs.”


Comey stood by his recommendation that Clinton not be charged. He said in the Clinton email investigation, as in all probes, agents were focused on the facts, the law,
“and how have similar people – all people – been treated in the past.” They are keenly interested, he said, in “what did the person do, and when they did that thing, what were they thinking.”

“We don’t want to put people in jail unless you we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do,” Comey said.

Comey noted, though, that a section of the Espionage Act allowed 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.” And he said investigators examined that charge for Clinton and her staffers.
But he said prosecutors had pursued only one case in nearly a century based on “gross negligence,” and took aim at his critics — some of them former prosecutors — who have said a case could have been made against Clinton

“I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I’d like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence,” Comey said.

The much-anticipated appearance comes just a day after the Justice Department formally closed its probe involving the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and two days after Comey announced his controversial recommendation. Republican legislators have been waging an aggressive campaign to solicit more information from Comey.

Comey has said previously that investigators looked at other cases involving classified information and could not find a parallel that would support charges in the Clinton matter. He specifically addressed the bureau’s investigation of former CIA director and general David Petraeus on Thursday, distinguishing it from the Clinton email probe in no uncertain terms. He said Petraeus — unlike Clinton — lied to the FBI, and investigators found classified material “hidden under the insulation in his attic.”

[Unlike Petraeus and others, Clinton’s case lacked malicious intent or other nefarious elements]

Clearly intentional conduct,” Comey said of Petraeus, “Knew what he was doing was a violation of the law.”

Comey, though, did not spare Clinton from possible criticism altogether. While he confirmed Clinton did not lie to bureau investigators, he said he was “not qualified to answer” whether she had lied to the public.

Comey said investigators had found three documents with classification markings when they assessed her personal email system, which contradicts Clinton’s previous public assertions on the matter, though the State Department has said two might have been incorrectly marked. Pressed on whether FBI agents had assessed whether Clinton had also lied under oath on that point during congressional testimony, Comey said they would need a referral from Congress.

“You’ll have one, you’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said.

Comey also said if an FBI agent were found to have been careless with classified information, that could result in a loss of security clearance, suspension or even termination.

“It would be a very important consideration in a suitability determination,” Comey said.

Late last week, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced she would accept the recommendation of career prosecutors and FBI agents to assuage questions about the investigation’s integrity, concerns that were intensified after Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton aboard her plane in Phoenix. Lynch and Clinton have asserted the meeting was a chance, social encounter at which no pending cases were discussed, and Lynch has said she planned to accept career employees’ recommendation even before it occurred.

Lynch herself is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. On Wednesday, she announced that she was accepting the recommendation of Comey and others and closing the probe involving Clinton.

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State,” Lynch said in a statement. “I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

As of 11 a.m., Comey’s testimony was ongoing.blahblah
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...le-main_comey-testimony-1230pm:homepage/story
 
We don’t want to put people in jail unless you we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do,” Comey said.
the emails showed Clinton had knowledge of archiving..does that count??
why would she go thru all this ( and lie extensively when caught) if it wasn't at minimum a FOIA dodge??

ANYWAYS...WHY IS A BUNCH OF FBI INVESTIGATORS MAKING PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONs ???? hmm?? :awesome:
 
the emails showed Clinton had knowledge of archiving..does that count??
why would she go thru all this ( and lie extensively when caught) if it wasn't at minimum a FOIA dodge??

ANYWAYS...WHY IS A BUNCH OF FBI INVESTIGATORS MAKING PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONs ???? hmm?? :awesome:

Because they didn't want it to go before a grand jury lol?

It's pretty obvious she was dodging FOIA requests.
 
F.B.I. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From G.O.P

Republican lawmakers on Thursday used blunt testimony from the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to try to build a case that Hillary Clinton repeatedly lied to the public and Congress as she defended her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

Under withering criticism from Republicans, Mr. Comey stood his ground on his recommendation against criminal prosecution for Mrs. Clinton and her aides. But he said Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, had been “negligent” in her handling of classified material, and he said that her lawyers probably deleted classified material as they destroyed thousands of her emails.

Mr. Comey — who maintained his composure except for one flash of anger when Republicans questioned his integrity — repeatedly acknowledged that the public statements by the former secretary of state, including some she delivered during a sworn appearance before Congress last year, were contradicted by the facts uncovered during the F.B.I. investigation.

“Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received,” Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said during several hours of testimony by Mr. Comey before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Was that true?”

“That’s not true,” Mr. Comey said. Asked later about Mrs. Clinton’s assertion during congressional testimony that none of her emails had been marked “classified,” Mr. Comey said three emails bore small markings indicating that they contained classified information.

Mr. Comey said F.B.I. investigators did not examine whether Mrs. Clinton had lied to Congress about her use of emails because the agency did not get a “referral” from the legislative branch to investigate her statements under oath. Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the committee, promised that would soon change.

The testimony from the F.B.I. director provided more ammunition for Mrs. Clinton’s political adversaries as Mr. Comey expanded on the remarks he made on Tuesday when he announced the agency’s recommendation. Mrs. Clinton’s defenders in Congress were forced to rebut the latest round of evidence rather than celebrate the dismissal of the criminal case, just a day after the Justice Department closed its criminal investigation into the email affair.


Aided by Democrats on the panel, who accused their Republican colleagues of conducting a partisan, political witch hunt, :)
Mr. Comey insisted that Mrs. Clinton was not given special consideration by the F.B.I. nor held to a more lenient standard than a less prominent person would have been.

His face turned red as he insisted that he had not spoken with anyone before announcing his conclusions earlier this week. In a raised voice he said that he wanted to make something very clear to anyone watching the hearing in their local cafe:
“I did not coordinate that with anyone,” he said.

In particular, Mr. Comey repeatedly suggested that someone who had done what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would likely be subject to administrative sanctions. Representative Ron DeSantis, Republican of Florida, asserted that those administrative consequences could include “revocation of security clearance.”“Yes,” Mr. Comey agreed.

It could,” the F.B.I. director said. Under questioning from Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Comey said that an employee of the F.B.I. who was found to be “extremely careless” with top secret information would be exposed to potential termination from the bureau.

“One of my employees would not be prosecuted for this,” Mr. Comey said under questioning later in the hearing. “They would face consequences for this.”

Top aides to Mrs. Clinton posted on Twitter throughout the hearing, describing the Republican efforts to quiz Mr. Comey as a stunt
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/u...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, had been “negligent” in her handling of classified material, and he said that her lawyers probably deleted classified material as they destroyed thousands of her emails.....
++

Mr. Comey said three emails bore small markings indicating that they contained classified information.......
++

Democrats on the panel, who accused their Republican colleagues of conducting a partisan, political witch hunt, :)
Mr. Comey insisted that Mrs. Clinton was not given special consideration by the F.B.I. nor held to a more lenient standard than a less prominent person would have been......
++

Clinton and her aides did would likely be subject to administrative sanctions...“revocation of security clearance.”“Yes,” Mr. Comey agreed....
++

Mrs. Clinton posted on Twitter throughout the hearing, describing the Republican efforts to quiz Mr. Comey as a stunt
......
 
F.B.I. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From G.O.P

Republican lawmakers on Thursday used blunt testimony from the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to try to build a case that Hillary Clinton repeatedly lied to the public and Congress as she defended her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

Under withering criticism from Republicans, Mr. Comey stood his ground on his recommendation against criminal prosecution for Mrs. Clinton and her aides. But he said Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, had been “negligent” in her handling of classified material, and he said that her lawyers probably deleted classified material as they destroyed thousands of her emails.

Mr. Comey — who maintained his composure except for one flash of anger when Republicans questioned his integrity — repeatedly acknowledged that the public statements by the former secretary of state, including some she delivered during a sworn appearance before Congress last year, were contradicted by the facts uncovered during the F.B.I. investigation.

“Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received,” Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said during several hours of testimony by Mr. Comey before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Was that true?”

“That’s not true,” Mr. Comey said. Asked later about Mrs. Clinton’s assertion during congressional testimony that none of her emails had been marked “classified,” Mr. Comey said three emails bore small markings indicating that they contained classified information.

Mr. Comey said F.B.I. investigators did not examine whether Mrs. Clinton had lied to Congress about her use of emails because the agency did not get a “referral” from the legislative branch to investigate her statements under oath. Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the committee, promised that would soon change.

The testimony from the F.B.I. director provided more ammunition for Mrs. Clinton’s political adversaries as Mr. Comey expanded on the remarks he made on Tuesday when he announced the agency’s recommendation. Mrs. Clinton’s defenders in Congress were forced to rebut the latest round of evidence rather than celebrate the dismissal of the criminal case, just a day after the Justice Department closed its criminal investigation into the email affair.


Aided by Democrats on the panel, who accused their Republican colleagues of conducting a partisan, political witch hunt, :)
Mr. Comey insisted that Mrs. Clinton was not given special consideration by the F.B.I. nor held to a more lenient standard than a less prominent person would have been.

His face turned red as he insisted that he had not spoken with anyone before announcing his conclusions earlier this week. In a raised voice he said that he wanted to make something very clear to anyone watching the hearing in their local cafe:
“I did not coordinate that with anyone,” he said.

In particular, Mr. Comey repeatedly suggested that someone who had done what Mrs. Clinton and her aides did would likely be subject to administrative sanctions. Representative Ron DeSantis, Republican of Florida, asserted that those administrative consequences could include “revocation of security clearance.”“Yes,” Mr. Comey agreed.

It could,” the F.B.I. director said. Under questioning from Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Comey said that an employee of the F.B.I. who was found to be “extremely careless” with top secret information would be exposed to potential termination from the bureau.

“One of my employees would not be prosecuted for this,” Mr. Comey said under questioning later in the hearing. “They would face consequences for this.”

Top aides to Mrs. Clinton posted on Twitter throughout the hearing, describing the Republican efforts to quiz Mr. Comey as a stunt
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/u...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

And yet, before the verdict, they loved Comey, thought he would decide the right thing, until he did and now they want his head! What a waste of money!
 
I disagree with the recommendations -there surely is precedent to charge her..but

The Repubs are usually clowns- but this one seems to be fleshing out more Clinton horrors.

it's not a "waste of money" to show her "negligence" and "extreme carelessness" - or the fact she was in all very much likely hacked.

She's extremely lucky to be out of the State Dept, instead of running for POTUS still as sec. -
or she most definitely would have faced administrative penalties/firing
 
I disagree with the recommendations -there surely is precedent to charge her..but

The Repubs are usually clowns- but this one seems to be fleshing out more Clinton horrors.

it's not a "waste of money" to show her "negligence" and "extreme carelessness" - or the fact she was in all very much likely hacked.

She's extremely lucky to be out of the State Dept, instead of running for POTUS still as sec. -
or she most definitely would have faced administrative penalties/firing

The Republicans lauded Comey and were sure of his ability, until he didn't decide the issue the way they wanted, just more of their bumbling because they don't want to say Madam President. If they really cared about emails and security they would have investigated far more people than just Clinton. This is just to get Hillary, it isn't any real concern about security! They are a farce.
 
The Republicans lauded Comey and were sure of his ability, until he didn't decide the issue the way they wanted, just more of their bumbling because they don't want to say Madam President. If they really cared about emails and security they would have investigated far more people than just Clinton. This is just to get Hillary, it isn't any real concern about security! They are a farce.
FBI also investigated her aides. There is a real question about "precedent" -i'd have to look for it -but at least one prosecuted a year ago
was for the same section ( gross negligence regardless of intent ) -this section

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 ..

sure politics is always there at this level. But these are substantive wrongdoings - and I'm 99% sure Clinton did it
to hide from any FOIA requests.

Whatever the happenstance here -Clinton did this to herself without a Republican "witch hunt"
 
same old crap as he other day. He can't find precedent despite the fact there was at least one last year.
He does not dispute "extreme carelessness" = gross negligence..

Why is a FBI guy making legal decisions of this fine a point? A. Because Lynch punted to him because
B. Clinton forced her hand? * that's a conspiracy theory, but one in plain sight*

Still testifying, the Republicans are still preening for the camera..Congress is a wonderful TV stage :palm:

++++

FBI Director James B. Comey said Thursday that it would have been virtually unprecedented to charge Hillary Clinton under a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information through “gross negligence.”

The case, he said, would have been just the second in nearly a century.

“No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years based on gross negligence,” he said.

Comey was testifying Thursday morning before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where he was grilled by legislators on how he concluded no charges should be brought in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system while she was secretary of state. Of particular interest was how the FBI director reconciled his assessment that Clinton was “extremely careless” with his decision not to recommend charges.

“We’re mystified and confused by the fact pattern that you laid out and the conclusions that you reached,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Comey. “It seems that there are two standards, and there’s no consequence for these types of activities and dealing in a careless way with classified information. It seems to a lot of us that the Average Joe, the average American, that if they had done what you laid out in your statement, that they’d be in handcuffs.”


Comey stood by his recommendation that Clinton not be charged. He said in the Clinton email investigation, as in all probes, agents were focused on the facts, the law,
“and how have similar people – all people – been treated in the past.” They are keenly interested, he said, in “what did the person do, and when they did that thing, what were they thinking.”

“We don’t want to put people in jail unless you we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do,” Comey said.

Comey noted, though, that a section of the Espionage Act allowed 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.” And he said investigators examined that charge for Clinton and her staffers.
But he said prosecutors had pursued only one case in nearly a century based on “gross negligence,” and took aim at his critics — some of them former prosecutors — who have said a case could have been made against Clinton

“I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I’d like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence,” Comey said.

The much-anticipated appearance comes just a day after the Justice Department formally closed its probe involving the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and two days after Comey announced his controversial recommendation. Republican legislators have been waging an aggressive campaign to solicit more information from Comey.

Comey has said previously that investigators looked at other cases involving classified information and could not find a parallel that would support charges in the Clinton matter. He specifically addressed the bureau’s investigation of former CIA director and general David Petraeus on Thursday, distinguishing it from the Clinton email probe in no uncertain terms. He said Petraeus — unlike Clinton — lied to the FBI, and investigators found classified material “hidden under the insulation in his attic.”

[Unlike Petraeus and others, Clinton’s case lacked malicious intent or other nefarious elements]

“Clearly intentional conduct,” Comey said of Petraeus, “Knew what he was doing was a violation of the law.”

Comey, though, did not spare Clinton from possible criticism altogether. While he confirmed Clinton did not lie to bureau investigators, he said he was “not qualified to answer” whether she had lied to the public.

Comey said investigators had found three documents with classification markings when they assessed her personal email system, which contradicts Clinton’s previous public assertions on the matter, though the State Department has said two might have been incorrectly marked. Pressed on whether FBI agents had assessed whether Clinton had also lied under oath on that point during congressional testimony, Comey said they would need a referral from Congress.

“You’ll have one, you’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said.

Comey also said if an FBI agent were found to have been careless with classified information, that could result in a loss of security clearance, suspension or even termination.

“It would be a very important consideration in a suitability determination,” Comey said.

Late last week, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced she would accept the recommendation of career prosecutors and FBI agents to assuage questions about the investigation’s integrity, concerns that were intensified after Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton aboard her plane in Phoenix. Lynch and Clinton have asserted the meeting was a chance, social encounter at which no pending cases were discussed, and Lynch has said she planned to accept career employees’ recommendation even before it occurred.

Lynch herself is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. On Wednesday, she announced that she was accepting the recommendation of Comey and others and closing the probe involving Clinton.

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State,” Lynch said in a statement. “I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

As of 11 a.m., Comey’s testimony was ongoing.blahblah
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...le-main_comey-testimony-1230pm:homepage/story

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...classified-emails-AGREE-statements-false.html

Sent from my LENOVO Lenovo K50-t5 Using Ez Forum for Android
 
Did Clinton Give Her Lawyers Access to Classified Documents

Mr. Chaffetz pressed Mr. Comey on whether the former secretary of state had provided access to classified information to a number of people who did not hold security clearances, including her lawyers and the people who managed her email server.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Mr. Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Mr. Comey responded.

Mr. Chaffetz repeatedly questioned Mr. Comey why there shouldn’t be consequences for Mrs. Clinton or her lawyers for that breach of security. But Mr. Comey insisted that it would be nearly impossible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for giving her lawyers access to the emails for the purpose of evaluating them.

“I think it would be a very tall order,” Mr. Comey said, to determine that “she was acting with criminal intent.”

That conclusion left Mr. Chaffetz shaking his head. But with time running out, he dropped the matter and handed questioning over to the panel’s top Democrat.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/james-c...vide-access-to-classified-documents-to-others
++
at some point this gross negligence has to fall in regardless of intent .
I do not think Comey is capable of seeing this -and really he should not have to
 
FBI also investigated her aides. There is a real question about "precedent" -i'd have to look for it -but at least one prosecuted a year ago
was for the same section ( gross negligence regardless of intent ) -this section

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 ..

sure politics is always there at this level. But these are substantive wrongdoings - and I'm 99% sure Clinton did it
to hide from any FOIA requests.

Whatever the happenstance here -Clinton did this to herself without a Republican "witch hunt"
Sorry, I'm going with the FBI on this, I feel they are a little better versed on the laws than yourself.
 
Sorry, I'm going with the FBI on this, I feel they are a little better versed on the laws than yourself.
The question has been hanging..it's not just me...it's a serious legal point

he's correctly shown her to be a liar..and that is something she has to own..no "witch hunts"
 
Back
Top