- I did not send or receive classified information.
- I did not send or received any information "marked" classified.
- I used one device for convenience.
- I turned over all of the emails.
- etc... etc...
While only the general public can hold Clinton accountable for false statements made to the general public (something almost no Democrat would ever do to a Clinton)... if those same statements were made "under oath" as they would have been when she answered questions before the Benghazi committee, that could actually be perjury.
 |
| Mulling perjury charges? |
Now, whether or not such charges could stick is obviously a question mark. Clinton would simply use the "I wasn't lying, I was wrong" defense and they would go from there. But it's clear that statements she made under oath in front of congress were false. That certainly brings up potential problems for the presumed nominee.
My own observations on this is fairly simple, and a belief I have held all along. Clinton lied to the American public and in front of the Benghazi committee for purposes that have become evident listening to the explanation of James Comey. By continually denying that she sent or received classified information, she appears to make the case that she wasn't knowingly breaking the law. As Comey pointed out, however, any reasonable person in the position of Hillary Clinton would have or should have known she was dealing with classified information, and would have or should have known that they should not have been sent on an unauthorized email system.
Those statements from the FBI directory could come in handy during any sort of case brought against her for perjury. However, on the flip side... the ultimate recommendations of no charges, seems to suggest that Comey believes that Clinton actually just should have known, but actually didn't. Apparently he just wasn't convinced she was a reasonable enough person to "have" known.
That's certainly an indictment on her competency and abilities to be leader of the free world. But it keeps her out of jail, and likely keep her from perjury charges as well.
48 comments:
Not only perjury charges, but proving intent.
Gowdy loaded for bear this morning.
Lying to Congress is still a crime is it not.
Gowdy is a Hack. His great job on the Benghazi hearings precludes him from running anything but a fundraiser for Trump. Please, his 15 minutes of fame is long diminished. His attempt at trying to trip up Comey was nothing but a partisan attempt at discrediting a very competent director. He is an embarrassment that should be sent home and is a root cause of the R's abysmal approval rate in congress.
Since Gowdy is the reason we found out about Clinton's server and the reason there was an FBI investigation and likely the reason why she is in an actual race against a reality television star...
It's quite understandable why the left resorts to calling him names. I'd be upset with him too, if I was a Clinton apostle.
Not mentioned in the top post, where Coney said it is illegal to lie in the interviews, under oath or not.
No official deposition, no recording, no transcript.
He wasn't there, he asked no questions, even though he told the nation months ago that he was personally involved.
And then he didn't even talk to everyone who was there.
This is an absolute whitewash.
CH says:
I am sure there are quite a few people charged under US Code 1924 who will wonder why they didn't receive similar treatment.
We say:
And now we are sure you will name "quite a few" for us.
Actually several have already been named.
You haven't been paying attention.
Amusing quote from Comey: "Hillary Clinton wasn't sophisticated enough to realize the stylized 'C' was a classification mark."
Guess Opie admires such "sophistication".
Then name them again.
Not mentioned in the top post, where Coney said it is illegal to lie in the interviews, under oath or not.
Suppose it's illegal to lie under oath in a congressional hearing?
James... of course you are right. Nobody has ever been charged under 18 US code 1924 before. Ahem...
My understanding is that precedence is why no charges are made. It's obscure but it's what I have read about.
James said...
Then name them again.
For the stupid, childish, intellectually lazy people.
Kristian Saucier
Bryan H. Nishimura
David Petraeus
My understanding is that precedence is why no charges are made. It's obscure but it's what I have read about.
See above.
And if that's still doesn't convince you, you to ask yourself; Where do precedences come from?
Because right now it's obvious the only precedence set is that there's a separate standard for the politically connected.
2:20
I didn't know "quite a few" = 3.
LOL
I'm glad you can laugh at your own stupidity James.
You can be sure everybody else is.
Media figures seized on Nishimura’s 2015 charges to erroneously characterize Comey’s announcement as a double standard, but, AS WITH THE DEBUNKED COMPARISONS of Clinton’s email use to David Petraeus’ and John Deutch’s cases, legal experts note that unlike Clinton, Nishimura knowingly mishandled classified information.
Did you laugh at that, Common?
Well James the only way you can say that Clinton didn't knowingly mishandled classified information was that she was too stupid to know what classified information is.
Is that what you are saying James.
n declining to seek prosecution of Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said the former Secretary of State's handling of classified emails was "extremely careless" - conduct, legal experts said, that falls short of "gross negligence," a standard for criminal charges under the Espionage Act.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said in a news conference Tuesday detailing the FBI investigation and his decision.
Several legal experts agreed with Comey's conclusion that there was no recent precedent for bringing such a case without evidence of willful intent or gross negligence, and they said it would have been difficult to convince a jury to convict Clinton based on the evidence.
"Extreme carelessness doesn't necessarily translate into gross negligence," said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.
"The only times I have seen these statutes used has been situations in which people knew they were disclosing classified, confidential information, or they could show they didn’t really care," Levenson said.
Comey said investigators determined that Clinton exchanged 110 emails that contained government secrets and that she and her staff should have known the information was classified.
But unlike other cases prosecuted under the Espionage Act, the FBI has not suggested that Clinton intentionally shared government secrets with people not authorized to see them.
As for Saucier,
To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.
By contrast, sailors are trained early on that the engine compartment of a nuclear sub is a restricted area and that much information relating to the sub’s nuclear reactors is classified.
The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be "removed from its proper place," a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.
Vladeck said the law is not "well suited for careless discussion of information in unsecured media that doesn't dispossess the government of that information or direct it right into the hands of a foreign power."
Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said Comey's decision was "completely consistent" with every case brought for leaking classified government information.
Defendants in other cases include Stephen Kim, Lowell's client who pleaded guilty to leaking State Department documents to the press, as well as former C.I.A. Director General David Petraeus. He admitted to keeping classified information, which he would also share with his biographer, in his home, while telling the government he had returned all such information.
"The one common denominator of all such cases is that the individual involved intentionally sent material to those not authorized to receive it, like the press, like a foreign government," Lowell said.
Comey said the FBI "did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information." But he said it did find "evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling a very sensitive, highly classified information."
His recommendation, which Attorney General Loretta Lynch previously said she would accept, angered Republicans who said her actions should be punished.
Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump reacted to the news from his Twitter account, saying, "The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less."
In that case, the FBI recommended a felony charge. But Attorney General Eric Holder pursued a misdemeanor under another part of the law, and Petraeus pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to two years probation in 2015.
The FBI had recordings of Petraeus acknowledging the information in notebooks in his home was highly classified. Petraeus also admitted to lying to the FBI about sharing the information with Paula Broadwell, his biographer and lover.
Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, said Clinton's cooperation with FBI investigators also may have helped her avoid charges.
"There was no obstruction of justice, no failure to cooperate truthfully with investigators, no concealment of her activity," Aftergood said.
Legal precedent suggests that Clinton is unlikely to face a misdemeanor charge for recklessness because recent cases that ended with misdemeanors began as much larger felony charges against individuals who intended to leak information.
In 2010, Thomas Drake, a whistleblower from the NationalSecurity Agency who helped expose the government's warrantless surveillance of Americans, was charged with espionage after the government accused him of bringing five classified documents home. He denied the accusation, and those charges were dropped. Drake pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count for exceeding authorized use of a computer.
"Somebody needs to ask Comey about my case," Drake, who now works at an Apple store in Maryland, wrote in an email late Tuesday.
Former president Bill Clinton's national security adviser pleaded guilty in 2005 to smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives by stuffing them under his clothes. He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to two years of probation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-legal-idUSKCN0ZM04C
Also, it sounds as if things will go leniently for Saucier:
John Sexton at Hot Air:
Update: I contacted Kristian Saucier’s attorney, Derrick Hogan, today and asked him... if he had any comments about his client’s plea today. Mr. Hogan replied, “Today, Mr. Saucier accepted responsibility for his actions. This is something he did as a kid in 2009. He is ready to put this behind him and move on to be a productive member of society.”
The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be "removed from its proper place," a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.
They found classified documents on an unsecured server out of the control of the federal government.
If that's not a "proper place" I don't know what is.
Be it paper or electronic bits it's not that hard a standard to prove.
Certainly any jury could understand that concept.
Marine’s defense for disseminating classified information will cite Hillary Clinton’s case
A Marine Corps officer who has been locked in a legal battle with his service after self-reporting that he improperly disseminated classified information will use Hillary Clinton’s email case to fight his involuntary separation from the service, his lawyer said.
Maj. Jason Brezler’s case has been tied up in federal court since he sued the service in December 2014. He became a cause celebre among some members of Congress, Marine generals and military veterans after he sent a classified message using an unclassified Yahoo email account to warn fellow Marines in southern Afghanistan about a potentially corrupt Afghan police chief. A servant of that police official killed three Marines and severely wounded a fourth 17 days later, on Aug. 10, 2012, opening fire with a Kalashnikov rifle in an insider attack.
It's already begins. You will see many more lawyers using the Hillary defence.
Also, it sounds as if things will go leniently for Saucier
Saucier was indicted.
Roger - You've posted lot's of different opinions. But none of them actually reconcile with what Comey said today. Comey basically suggested that he could prove all of the elements of a criminal case... bar one. Understanding that what she was doing was a crime.
At the end of the day, it quite honestly sounds like he thinks she was too stupid to understand what she was doing... In the balancing act between dishonestly and incompetence, he was more convinced of the latter.
or as he put it, she was not "sophisticated enough" to realize she was breaking the law.
I think he is both right and wrong. She probably was too stupid to understand that she was breaking "that law"... and quite frankly, I honestly believe she couldn't care less if she put national security secrets or individuals in the field at risk.
But she very well understood that her intentions in setting up her private email was to avoid the FOIA, which basically is breaking a different law.
He knowingly, intentionally did wrong and later knowingly, intentionally tried to cover up, burying parts of a destroyed computer on his and relatives' property.
CHTRUTH SAYS: ...quite frankly, I honestly believe she couldn't care less if she put national security secrets or individuals in the field at risk.
______________
Now try saying this, Ch: ...quite frankly, I honestly believe she couldn't care less if she had known how much trouble her course of action would cause her politically.
The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be "removed from its proper place," a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
where i come from a personal server, where government secure servers are available, accessible, and required, is not a "proper place."
"Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said."
experts in what? donations to the clinton crime family foundation?
what utter bullshit.
I think he is both right and wrong. She probably was too stupid to understand that she was breaking "that law"... and quite frankly, I honestly believe she couldn't care less if she put national security secrets or individuals in the field at risk.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
yet some here would believe that she's qualified to be our next president.
the level of mental illness required to believe her qualified borders on the criminally insane.
it's benen, not benton.
and you forgot the hacktastic link to ralph maddow's blog so here you go:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-accidentally-does-clinton-favor-james-comey-hearing#break
Oh no!
179,000 jobs.
4.8%
50,000 more than last month count
I will back the Republicans if they call for a Special Prosecutor to examine the FBI evidence to determine if charges should be pursued.
Perjury and expoliation should be considered as well.
The stupid Republicans gave the Democrats a chance to get Comey on record refuting several conservative talking points and conspiracy theories.
The best one that used choreography as how it happened. Like in a play, the events lead to the finale, that being the speech by Comey, implying that he was being manipulated.
Interesting:
The open blog
Page views past week
2,116
Coldheartedtruth 2.0
Page views past week
1,937
I won. LOLOL
Delete if you wish CH I understand
Interesting:
The open blog
Page views past week
2,116
Coldheartedtruth 2.0
Page views past week
1,937
I won
God you have no life
God you have no life
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
no clue either.
website hit vs. page view - big difference.
we're also talking about the genius who doesn't know what an aggregator - a la drudge - is.
The stupid Republicans gave the Democrats a chance to get Comey on record refuting several conservative talking points and conspiracy theories.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
so name one.
since there are several, one should be a breeze.
ask steve benen over at ralphie strap-on's blog.
LOL.
Actually Roger, I didn't switch over to the new set up till last Thursday. So I would expect the old blog to have more page views till Friday... then I would expect both blogs to be pretty close...
What we won't see here, is the statement by the Governor of Minnesota on the killing of a black man in a suburb of St Paul Minnesota.
An "appalled" Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton said Thursday that police wouldn't have shot and killed Philando Castile if he'd been white and called for justice "with the greatest sense of time urgency."
Dayton said Castile would be alive if he hadn't been black, adding that the shooting demonstrated a troubling pattern of racism among some Minnesota law enforcement officers.
"Would this have happened if those passengers, the driver were white?" he asked. "I don't think it would have."
Dayton said he has spoken with Minnesota's senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, and the area's House representatives and would be demanding a Justice Department investigation.
He also said that he would not have been killed if he was white.
CH, I didn't know the details, but it was fun to post it. I was surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlZVCyJoz0o
The statement by the Minnesota governor.
From the perspective of a data scientist in the computer industry, and having in the past designed and deployed secure computer systems, this is a ridiculous claim:
"The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be "removed from its proper place," a tough legal requirement in the digital age"
Now I am no expert about the Espionage Act and legal requirements, but I think that such things must be based on reality at some level. The reality is that removal must mean taken from a place, in some form, from a secure location to some place or form where it is less secure.
"In the digital age" this is much, much easier to determine compared to the situation where the documents are only in physical form. Any digital copy or transmission, on or to an unsecured system that is publicly accessible is, obviously, removal. That someone would suggest otherwise puts him, in my mind, at about the same level of "sophistication" as is Clinton herself.
Post a Comment