LIVE: FBI Director testifies before House Oversight Committee at 10am est. Live feed

a reply to: Indigo5

Perjury - lying about facts while under oath.

Reference - Clinton lied to the Congressional hearing on Benghazi and her Email system.

outcome - A referral to the FBI to investigate perjury committed by Hillary Clinton while under oath and giving testimony about her Email system.

Example - Clinton "I turned over all related work emails". False per Dir. Comey.

Want me to keep going?

a reply to: introvert

and others have been telling you, and Comey confirmed that during his appearance, Negligence is the standard and not intent. Comey interpreted the law incorrectly and used the excuse he felt the law would not hold up because of the lesser standard.

As I have said he applied the wrong standard and it was not his decision to ignore a law based solely on what he thought about said law. Questions of constitutionality of a law is reserved to the courts and not the FBI director. Secondly, which has also been pointed out, have Comey / FBI done their job correctly, they would have looked into comments Clinton and her staff have made regarding the email server. By not doing this it removed crucial findings that support "intent". Especially Huma's when she testified the reason for the server was to keep her personal emails private and out of the FIOA realm. That statement contradicts Clintons statement when she said it was a matter of convenience.

In addition to Huma's statement there is an email from Clinton stating the sae thing - keeping emails out of the realm of FOIA.

Had the FBI looked at that they would have the "intent" that you and others incorrectly apply, even though its not required under the statute.

Since there was disagreement over "intent" it should have gone to a grand jury to let them decide.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Since there was disagreement over "intent" it should have gone to a grand jury to let them decide.

There is no disagreement about intent. We only have people that can't seem to understand what the hell is going on.

Like I said, you, and others, have no credibility whatsoever.

a reply to: introvert

There is and it was raised and debated with Comey who disagreed with the law using negligent. Not sure why you keep overlooking that fact. Ignoring the law doesnt make the law non existent or inapplicable. The criteria is gross negligence and not intent and Comey was corrected several times in it. Then we have the willful disregard for not reviewing clintons lies which would show intent, even though its not required.

Being lecture on credibility from you would be like getting lectured on credibility from Hillary Clinton so save the attempt as it wont go anywhere.. except maybe to Prison god willing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is and it was raised and debated with Comey who disagreed with the law using negligent. Not sure why you keep overlooking that fact.

Yes, it was debated by partisan politicians that should know better, but they are cut of the same cloth as Clinton. They can/do/will make similar mistakes.

Being lecture on credibility from you would be like getting lectured on credibility from Hillary Clinton so save the attempt as it wont go anywhere.. except maybe to Prison god willing.

Personal attacks?

C'mon. You can do better.

Edit:

The criteria is gross negligence and not intent and Comey was corrected several times in it. Then we have the willful disregard for not reviewing clintons lies which would show intent, even though its not required.

Legal precedence does not favor your opinion. Comey knocked it out of the park.

originally posted by: introvert
Yes, it was debated by partisan politicians that should know better, but they are cut of the same cloth as Clinton. They can/do/will make similar mistakes.

Wrong - the statute was pointed out and Comey was told intent is not a requirement. Comey argued the point offering his opinion on why he would not use the statute. His argument changed nothing because like Obama Comey cant change the law or what it says. To get around it he opted to make an excuse and not follow the statute.

Since he failed to investigate other aspects that would have shown intent one has to question why? After a year plus of investigating they never bothered to review whether anyone was lying? I find that impossible to believe since it goes to the heart of any case. By not doing their required job the intentionally ignored the very aspects that would ave shown intent.

originally posted by: introvert

Personal attacks?

C'mon. You can do better.

Sure I can however its not needed as my comment stands on its own. Secondly not a personal attack at all - just factual observation. You act just like Clinton.. you attack me, I respond, and then you whine because something returned the favor and supported it with facts you cant counter. Next time dont go down the road unless you know where your going.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As I said earlier. Your credibility is shot because you lacked the very basic level of understanding and research ability to find out the truth of the matter.

Your insistence to make personal attacks also shows your inability to properly debate a topic without your partisan emotions taking over your self-control.

Forgive me if I stand by a decision that was made with information available to us all, and not a partisan opinion of someone that can't get beyond their hatred for another person.

a reply to: introvert

Nothing I said was incorrect. None of my research was incorrect.

Like I said you launch a personal attack then whine when a factual one is thrown back at you. Ironic yet not surprising.


Since I dont know how to research or know what I am talking about please point out the word intent in the statute we are discussing -

(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—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

i will wait why you fail and try to introduce something unrelated all the while attacking me while whining you are doing nothing wrong and people are attacking you..

No, really, go ahead Hillary I will wait.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yup...comprehension fail. Credibility shot. The FBI's findings and case history shows gross negligence is not the correct line of attack. Only once in 99 years has gross negligence been prosecuted in matters of security.

This is elementary, really.

a reply to: introvert

Yes once in 100 years which was shown not to be true.. That does not invalidate the law. Prosecutors, investigators cannot change the law on a whim based on their personal opinion. A laws validity is valid until a court says otherwise.

As such it should have gone to a grand jury and the court process should have been used.

The video above is the intent.

Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Yes once in 100 years.. That does not invalidate the law. Prosecutors, investigators cannot change the law on a whim based on their personal opinion. A laws validity is valid until a court says otherwise.

As such it should have gone to a grand jury and the court process should have been used.

The video above is the intent.

Don't forget the SC, which said intent was key.

Remember the SC opinion that included the words "bad faith"?

That is why the law is rarely enforced because the burden of proof includes intent.

originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

It was used more than one time. The carefully chosen language was designed to give a false impression. All other prosecutions under that statute and 18 USC 1924 were successful and circumstantial evidence was used to show intent.

Had the FBI investigate Clinton and her aides statements it would have shown exactly what Gowdy brought up in the video, showing intent.

For some reason the FBI felt no need to do their job in that manner.

originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and was this for (a) or (f)?

a reply to: introvert

Again it did not apply to this.

nice try though.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

and was this for (a) or (f)?

F is the applicable section. No other sections in that statute apply, contrary to others trying to falsely say so.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.

No its not. That is a policy of the DOJ and again has no bearing on the actual statute.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

It was used more than one time. The carefully chosen language was designed to give a false impression. All other prosecutions under that statute and 18 USC 1924 were successful and circumstantial evidence was used to show intent.

Had the FBI investigate Clinton and her aides statements it would have shown exactly what Gowdy brought up in the video, showing intent.

For some reason the FBI felt no need to do their job in that manner.

Nice bit of misdirection. It was not used more than one time.

793(f) was only prosecuted once and that is the specific statute you are trying to argue.

Very disingenuous of you.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Again it did not apply to this.

nice try though.

Yes it did. The SC created a specific opinion about that very statute.