It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

LIVE: GOP Calling for Hillary Investigation...Wednesday, December 6, 2017

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Grambler

Didnt wray say earler on that the doj has asked the ig to start an investigation into the email fiasco?


Yes they have.

Jordans point is that the oversight comttiee in congress has oversight authority over the the FBI, and so Wray answer that he cant let the committtee see what the FBIO presented to the fisa court is a lie.




posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So wray just says that Grosse negligence and extreme carelessness are very close to being the same thing.

Hmmm.

Given the statute says gross negligence is enough to be charged, then why wasnt Hillary charged if the FBI believed extreme carelessness was basically the same thing?


I think he tried to make that comparison in an attempt to make the language of gross negligence and extreme careless seem not so bad..when in fact he is saying someone being extremely careless is on par with gross negligence which is part of the criminal statute....

She has always been guilty. I still don't know how some people can come here everyday and defend this woman.


sickening.





posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
She has always been guilty. I still don't know how some people can come here everyday and defend this woman.
sickening.

Might it have something to do with the fact that she has not been charged, nor found guilty of any crime? Just a thought, eh?
Darned presumption of innocence...gets in the way all the time!



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Grambler
So wray just says that Grosse negligence and extreme carelessness are very close to being the same thing.

Hmmm.

Given the statute says gross negligence is enough to be charged, then why wasnt Hillary charged if the FBI believed extreme carelessness was basically the same thing?


I think he tried to make that comparison in an attempt to make the language of gross negligence and extreme careless seem not so bad..when in fact he is saying someone being extremely careless is on par with gross negligence which is part of the criminal statute....

She has always been guilty. I still don't know how some people can come here everyday and defend this woman.


sickening.




Yes you are exactly right that is what wray was doing.

He was saying Strzok changing the language is really not a big deal, because extreme carelessness is basically the same as gross negligence.

What he doesnt realize is that his answer actually makes the FBI look even worse: of they are the same thing, then there would be no reason at all not to charge Hillary.

Especially when comey in his own statement admits gross negligence is separate from intent.


Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.


www.fbi.gov... -a-personal-e-mail-system



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Intent is nowhere near the statute in question, contrary to what Comey and others ignorantly claim. Intent is not required to violate 18 USC 793 (F).

Making the argument Comey did, well, he lied to the American people... blatantly lied.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Jordan comes right and says he thinks strzok was the guy that took the dossier to the fisa court, and like I have been saying, he says that if that happened it is as bad as it gets.

As I have been saying for months.


it is only a matter of time
the people standing between the info and congress keep getting peeled away

the real question is how far up the ladder into the former administration will this reach?



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: GuidedKill
She has always been guilty. I still don't know how some people can come here everyday and defend this woman.
sickening.

Might it have something to do with the fact that she has not been charged, nor found guilty of any crime? Just a thought, eh?
Darned presumption of innocence...gets in the way all the time!


Or could it possible it is a corruption to the highest level? Do you not think it's possible? Have American politics and the justice system charged with enforcing the laws not been enough to show corruption is not only very possible but most likely?






posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Grambler

Intent is nowhere near the statute in question, contrary to what Comey and others ignorantly claim. Intent is not required to violate 18 USC 793 (F).

Making the argument Comey did, well, he lied to the American people... blatantly lied.


If you listened to what Comey had said, he talked about mens rea:


The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.


en.wikipedia.org...

Comey did not lie and apparently his recommendation was proper.

Given what we know, we have yet to have any legal expert or lawyer step forward to say they could prosecute Hillary under these circumstances. In fact, we have had quite the opposite.

Here is a link that goes much deeper on the aspect.


This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.



In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f). Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory. Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yes im aware however it doesnt mean anything since mens rea is a state of mind and goes to the intent argument. Intent is not a part of the statute section and is not required.


Mens rea is the mental element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. ...


Gross negligence is when ones actions create an unexpected / unintended consequence without an intent to create it.

IE a person gets drunk at the bar and decides to drive home. During that journey he crosses center line, striking another car head on, killing its occupants. The suspect had no intent to kill anyone by his actions and therefore cant be charged with murder, which requires an "intent" to kill someone. Instead he is charged with involuntary manslaughter, which requires gross negligence -


Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the ...



What part of this do you and Comey not understand?

Comey lied when he said Intent was needed. He created his own requirement in the statute that does NOT exist for this section. Given he drafted his exoneration letter before interviews occurred should be your first clue.

The fact the interview with Hillary Clinton was not recorded should be another huge red flag in that she lied to the FBI, the FBI covered it up for her, and since no record exists she cant be charged with lying to the FBI.

go figure...

So you can save the bs mens rea / intent argument as it does not apply and is not required.

Comey did in fact lie.
Legal experts have stated time and again Comey was wrong and Clinton could and should be pros4ecuted under the statute.
edit on 7-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Explain to me why then in Comeys statement he differentiates between intent and gross negligence.

If intent is necessary for gross negligence, why would he not have just said we are to make sure she didnt handle the material improperly with intent.

Instead he says to make sure she didnt mishandle it "either intentionally OR with gross negligence"



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



What part of this do you and Comey not understand?


I do not think you are in any position to say that COmey did not understand what he was talking about.

I just gave you a link that discusses this issue, with precedent, showing that intent is indeed an important aspect.



Comey lied when he said Intent was needed. He created his own requirement in the statute that does NOT exist for this section.


Look at the link. It discusses SCOTUS cases.



Given he drafted his exoneration letter before interviews occurred should be your first clue.


He must have drafted his release based on the evidence. Your assertion does not really mean very much. It is not proof of anything, except that he must have expected those being interviewed would not incriminate themselves, which is very reasonable.



The fact the interview with Hillary Clinton was not recorded should be another huge red flag in that she lied to the FBI, the FBI covered it up for her, and since no record exists she cant be charged with lying to the FBI.


So she lied to the FBI, but you have no proof she lied to the FBI.

How does that even make sense?

Are you just making things up now?



So you can save the bs mens rea / intent argument as it does not apply and is not required.


It seems past cases would disagree.



Comey did in fact lie. Legal experts have stated time and again Comey was wrong and Clinton could and should be pros4ecuted under the statute.


Sure. Why has no one stepped forward to take Comey up on his challenge?

Could it be because those legal experts were full of #?



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Explain to me why then in Comeys statement he differentiates between intent and gross negligence.

If intent is necessary for gross negligence, why would he not have just said we are to make sure she didnt handle the material improperly with intent.

Instead he says to make sure she didnt mishandle it "either intentionally OR with gross negligence"


Ask Comey.

Regardless, it appears Comey was completely correct and I have provided links, with references to SCOTUS cases, among others, that show it is not as cut and dry as many would like it to be.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Intent is not a required element as Comey claimed - he lied.
Gross negligence is the standard for that section - he lied.
He used gross negligence in his exoneration letter and changed it - he lied.

I am in a position to say Comey screwed up. I know what the law says, how its applied, the elements required and I know Comey ignored it all and created his own element thats not part of the law in question and lied about it.

Comey was not even close to being correct and neither are you in this case.
edit on 7-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
And so it begins? God, I certainly hope so! Hillary has escaped prosecution for far too long!


Representatives Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and others hold a press conference "calling for investigation on the FBI's treatment of Hillary Clinton."

www.youtube.com...


"All around the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel. .."

Now we just wait for the "POP!"


(post by introvert removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: GuidedKill
She has always been guilty. I still don't know how some people can come here everyday and defend this woman.
sickening.

Might it have something to do with the fact that she has not been charged, nor found guilty of any crime? Just a thought, eh?
Darned presumption of innocence...gets in the way all the time!


It reminds me of Al Capone. Law couldn’t touch him even though everyone knew that he was a gangster and guilty as hell. Al would have witnesses intimidated or killed, cops and judges bought off or killed and was smart enough to keep an arms length from all of the dirty stuff. Law couldn’t touch him and he was dirty as hell.

Then the IRS got him on tax evasion. Put him in prison. The IRS hadn’t been corrupted at that time so they nailed him.

The IRS is now corrupt too.

So yup, Hillary reminds me of Big Al.
edit on 7-12-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If there is nothing to hide, why would the FBI worry
about being investigated?



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
It looks like a propaganda campaign to divert attention.

First Trump puts out a tweet that was honestly a pitiful act of whining about how unfair it is. Then right wing tabloids come up with a blitz of articles trying to back up his claim so much so it hit on ats daily with people parroting the same line now there are half dozen congressional swamp creatures calling for an investigation of investigators.

They are just playing to public opinion trying to preop whatever findings are about to come out from the ongoing investigation.
edit on 7-12-2017 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join