@Blickers,
Quote:Comey is FBI, which is executive branch.
You were shown that the agents who did the investigation disagreed with Comey. Unless you think that Fox just made up quotes from the source they verified. Do you believe there's a conspiracy to trash Comey? The fact is that Clinton violated the U.S. Code concerning classified material.
I believe the statement that Comey made is valid.
Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," and then added, "prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."
He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Actually that statement is not valid. Either he lied, or he is unaware of a case from a year ago in which the FBI charged Bryan Nishimura, a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, with unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. And he did so without malicious intent. That's what Hillary did.
This is from Section 793 of the U.S. Code:
(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—
_______________________________________
So go ahead and point out the "intent" clause in that Code if you would. I can't find it. You said that there has to be intent concerning gross negligence. The legal definition of gross negligence is extreme carelessness. Even common sense tell you that deliberate gross negligence in such a case as Clinton's would be something akin to treason.
And here is what Comey said about Hillary Clinton's actions:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
__________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent. What does the statute say about that?
__________________________________________________________________________
Douglas Cox, a law professor at City University of New York who studies records preservation said that the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable. He said that the fact that Clinton's staff--rather than a State Department federal records officer--chose which emails to destroy is "honestly breathtaking." Her private employees don't have the authority to decide what does or doesn't count as a federal record. Further, when she was making these choices, she was acting as a private citizen, not a government employee.
__________________________________________________________________________
She received training on how, and how not, to handle sensitive material, and signed a document binding her legally to the details of that document. What baseless excuse would you like to make for her?
