jtssrx Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook By Andrew C. McCarthy — July 5, 2016 There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey(disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comeyeven conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. GET FREE EXCLUSIVE NR CONTENT 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. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racinfarmer Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 The FBI doesn't want to black eye of a jury not finding her guilty. If it were you or I, we'd be making phone calls for additional legal counsel and possibly for bail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 6 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Lol You should really get your head back in that sand bucket before the pin hole closes up. Hurry!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, racinfarmer said: The FBI doesn't want to black eye of a jury not finding her guilty. If it were you or I, we'd be making phone calls for additional legal counsel and possibly for bail. You got that right! Nice find Jtsrx! There dose's not have to be intent...makes sense to me. Edited July 6, 2016 by Capt.Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 17 minutes ago, Zambroski said: You should really get your head back in that sand bucket before the pin hole closes up. Hurry!!! Yeah they changed the law....lmao you go with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted July 6, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted July 6, 2016 1 minute ago, Mainecat said: Yeah they changed the law....lmao you go with that. Just admit it already, she'll be the presidential nominee and you will vote for her. Just like we all said you would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 22 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Yeah they changed the law....lmao you go with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted July 6, 2016 Author Share Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mainecat said: Yeah they changed the law....lmao you go with that. You do know Andy McCarthy was a federal prosecutor right? There is is no intent in the law he made that up as Andy says. Oh and it would be nice for once if you would get past your partisan view of politics and call a spade a spade? Edited July 6, 2016 by jtssrx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 They didn't change the fuckin laws. What pure bullshit. You ass clowns lap this shit up as real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted July 6, 2016 Author Share Posted July 6, 2016 12 minutes ago, Mainecat said: They didn't change the fuckin laws. What pure bullshit. You ass clowns lap this shit up as real. No he didn't adhere to the law which is essentially changing it. Its sad how you've gone from blindly supporting the bush family to blindly supporting the Clintons. people like you are what's wrong with this country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member Kivalo Posted July 6, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted July 6, 2016 17 minutes ago, Mainecat said: They didn't change the fuckin laws. What pure bullshit. You ass clowns lap this shit up as real. Its called a legal fallacy, historians note its use at various times. It allows the powers that be to maintain the status quo despite a legal discrepancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted July 6, 2016 Author Share Posted July 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, Kivalo said: Its called a legal fallacy, historians note its use at various times. It allows the powers that be to maintain the status quo despite a legal discrepancy. Don't waste your time on this clueless hack!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted July 6, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) Hmmm.....interesting. https://mobile.twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/750479860083134464 Edited July 6, 2016 by Biggie Smails Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.