Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When asked the same question about prosecution he said the regular joe would be prosecuted.. putting Hillary's name on it , no prosecution and Comey insists there is no one above the law.
He said the standard moves when prosecuting Hillary but his words say different. He said he does not hold a different standard.. this just doesn't add up.
Hmm, no. He said several times the regular joe wouldn't be prosecuted either.
That being said, this is in contradiction to all training anyone holding a clearance receives. He said employees would only face firing and/or losing their clearance. This is disturbing because it means what everyone has thought all these years about what happens with improper spillage of classified information is not correct because the DOJ has a long standing unofficial policy of ignoring the gross negligence component of this statute.
HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do 85% of the people posting have comprehension problems?
He said they could not unequivocally prove she knew she had intent to commit a crime. BIG DIFFERENCE. If they cannot find adequate evidence, you cannot recommend to prosecute.
After watching the hearing and reading these posts, the only thing I know for sure is:
Comey is above board.
Most of these grandstanding blowhard Senators shouldn't be reelected.
We're screwed as a nation, given the posts in this thread.
"the only thing I know for sure is:!.""Most of these grandstanding blowhard Senators shouldn't be reelected."
No BODY who does NOT KNOW that this is a HOUSE hearing and not ONE SINGLE Senator is asking questions has NO business criticizing ANYBODY else.
"HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
IMO, that is EXACTLY what he is saying.
She KNOWS the laws about how to handle classified material.
To NOT handle it the PROPER way IS INTENT.
Comey is being asked now about how Hillary TELLING Classified people to REMOVE the classification heading and send it to non-classified people.
Any reasonable person would conclude that she had INTENT.
I did not intend to go over the speed limit, but guess what , I get a ticket ...
Hillary was briefed about security ... she instead decided to put her cyber communications on a illegal server in her basement.. she intended to break the law ..she did not follow the protocol of a secure server. She thought she is above the law.. plus she had her lawyers scrub many communications off her server.. many they could not find.. if this isn't shady , and illegal , what is?
AGAIN, you're discussing a misdemeanor. That's NOT the way the FBI works.
So...not only are you NOT watching the hearings, you're not reading the thread, since this has already been stated.
But you sure are confident that you know what you're talking about. What part of the FBI do you work for anyway that you know so much?
Hmm, no. He said several times the regular joe wouldn't be prosecuted either.
That being said, this is in contradiction to all training anyone holding a clearance receives. He said employees would only face firing and/or losing their clearance. This is disturbing because it means what everyone has thought all these years about what happens with improper spillage of classified information is not correct because the DOJ has a long standing unofficial policy of ignoring the gross negligence component of this statute.
Then why have people been prosecuted for pretty much the same thing like Patreus? What made his situation different? Hillary allowed several administrators have access to her email server which gives them unauthorized access to her emails without them having a security clearance? Isn't that what happened to the General? He shared sensitive info from a calendar with someone who was not authorized?
According to Comey Testimony (under oath) - it's a 1917 Law that has been used/charged in ONE case and that charge never made it into Court. It's poorly written and the DOJ is afraid to use it because they don't think they can get a conviction with it.
I had posted this in another thread earlier this morning.
The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be “removed from its proper place.â€
Now what they are trying to say is basically that terminology is insufficient and hard to define with today's technology and cyberspace reality yada yada yada
I whole heartedly disagree. Seems to me like it is very easy to apply to today's technology.
The "proper place" would have been a secure server.
Sending it to and from an unsecured private server would be "removing it from its proper place."
Rep. Cummings did not like that last answer from Comey at all on the appropriateness of investigating Hilary. For those not watching, Comey defended the investigation and it was appropriate to investigate her. Cummings trying to equate this to Condi Rice was shot down as well - oh that's right, Condi didn't have a private unsecure server in her basement.
I'm not sure why they did that, but the poster that corrected me is correct, you don't even have to be under oath to get in trouble for lying to the FBI, Congress may be different, I'm not sure.
It is a felony to lie to Congress when under oath.
"the only thing I know for sure is:!.""Most of these grandstanding blowhard Senators shouldn't be reelected."
No BODY who does NOT KNOW that this is a HOUSE hearing and not ONE SINGLE Senator is asking questions has NO business criticizing ANYBODY else.
"HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
IMO, that is EXACTLY what he is saying.
She KNOWS the laws about how to handle classified material.
To NOT handle it the PROPER way IS INTENT.
Comey is being asked now about how Hillary TELLING Classified people to REMOVE the classification heading and send it to non-classified people.
Any reasonable person would conclude that she had INTENT.
Blame multi-tasking here. I know the difference between the House and the Senate.
That's your opinion. It's not what he said.
And you got the last part wrong, too. He said she told them to remove the classification, and "make it paper" so it could be sent to non-classified people - which is State Department parlance for "removing all classified information so it could be sent." He explained that.
HE DIDN'T SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do 85% of the people posting have comprehension problems?
He said they could not unequivocally prove she knew she had intent to commit a crime. BIG DIFFERENCE. If they cannot find adequate evidence, you cannot recommend to prosecute.
After watching the hearing and reading these posts, the only thing I know for sure is:
Comey is above board.
Most of these grandstanding blowhard Senators shouldn't be reelected.
We're screwed as a nation, given the posts in this thread.
Even if you're right, which you're not, what about the 'gross negligence' part of the law. There's no doubt she was grossly negligent, though Comey used the words extremely careless. The distinction between the two should be up to a jury to decide.
For reasons only Comey knows, he decided to write a nice opening statement for a prosecutor, then became Clinton's defense lawyer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
