Just Comey? It Was A COORDINATED Effort Among Top FBI Brass To Decriminalize Clinton's Conduct!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just one case, please.

* - United States v. McGuinness
The courts found that Congress created a sliding scale under 18 usc 793

In McGuinness, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals rejected the defendant’s claim, and it did so in a way that is instructive for our purposes. The judges explained that in Section 793 (part of the codification of the Espionage Act of 1917), Congress sought to establish a sliding scale of violations involving the mishandling of classified information.

* - The first subsection – Sec. 793(a) – requires proof of “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”

* - Subsequent subsections – Sec. 793(d) and (e) – “require only that the accused act ‘willfully’” (i.e., in violation of a known legal duty, but not necessarily with intent to harm the U.S.).

* - Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.)

Note that the judges matter-of-factly endorse Congress’s framework: There is no hint of a problem with the concept of employing the criminal law to punish a related series of national security offenses from the most serious, involving intent to harm the United States, down to the least serious, involving gross negligence. Within that framework, the court rejects the claim that the less serious offenses require proof of the higher criminal intent called for in the more serious offenses.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

So again, comey lied when he made his claims.

I finally found the one case to which introvert continally refers:

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.

It does indeed state in the article that the Supreme Court determined that intent is necessary for prosecution under this section of the statute, but it is due to the phrase, “relating to the national defense,” rather than the phrase, "gross negligence:"

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

The only problem I have with all of this is that Comey, or anyone else for that matter, never even mentioned anything remotely close to this.

If the above is indeed the case, it should have been plainly stated and maybe we wouldn't have had to have these discussions all these many months after the fact.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Nope -
you overlooked a critical part of that case -

2004 Plea Agreement

Smith pleaded guilty to a charge of falsely concealing his alleged affair with Katrina Leung, from the FBI. He was sentenced to three months' home confinement for lying to the FBI about his affair. He also was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. The plea allowed Smith to avoid prison time. Prosecutors also agreed to drop three other charges, including two counts of gross negligence in his handling of national security documents.[2]

He was never charged with gross negligence being he accepted a plea deal which dropped those specific charges. The court case I cited has a federal court recognizing the validity of the sliding scale created by Congress.

This goes back to what I was saying about cases where a person plead guilty instead of not guilty and it going to court. Also when he was on the Supreme court it was between 1930's and 1950's. His opinion as a solicitor general does not reflect the current Supreme Court.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Military court.

Different animal altogether.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, I'm actually with you on that.

As of yet, it looks like there has not been one prosecution under 793 (f), there may have been others who were charged and then plead to lesser offenses as is the case here. But there has not been one yet fully prosecuted and thus Hillary woud be a case of first impression.

And all of this is tangential to the topic of the thread anyway, which is a bias in the upper levels of the FBI in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Immunity given to so many people really should have been RICO charges for the lot. And probably sedition as well considering who all was involved.

Everyone was so certain that Hillary was going to win and had she, none of this would have come to light.

The IG report will, hopefully, answer a lot of questions.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for being honest.

You're starting to understand where I am coming from.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Military court.

Different animal altogether.

They both follow the exact same federal laws concerning classified information.

Go ahead... as you like to say.......show me 1 case where someone was prosecuted in the military for classified information that was not charged for being in violation of one of the existing federal laws.

a reply to: RickinVa

They both follow the exact same federal laws concerning classified information.

Yes, but if I am not mistaken, they have different levels of procedural protections and standards of requirements for intent/guilt.

I may be incorrect.

Go ahead... as you like to say.......show me 1 case where someone was prosecuted in the military for classified information that was not charged for being in violation of one of the existing federal laws.

I never made any claim to the contrary.

originally posted by: luthier

Me too..

The head of the fbi could have been compromised by the doj but he isn't in power.

Standing by for what more fox facts?

Well at least the massive leaks have dropped off...Much of the damage had been done by the time Comey and others were replaced. I don't even think Comey was apart of it outside of not being very competent.

a reply to: Xtrozero

When the Patriot act expanded Intel you ended up with 22 year old college grads as subs...

Really dumb idea. At least the fbi has pretty rigorous screening and testing.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Military court.

Different animal altogether.

Nope for national security leaks. The same statute is used for both, civilian and military and the information linked notes that.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

People have been charged with it, like in the example you provided. the difference being what we discussed - that the prosecutor dropped the charges for a plea deal.

If the statute section was not applicable or even enforceable it would not have been used, let alone charging the guy with 2 counts of it. That coupled with the ruling I linked to clearly establishes the constitutionality of the entire 793 statute, including the F section.

The reason Comey ls lying in this area is the courts at all levels have already accepted laws where gross negligence is the standard and people have been prosecuted and found guilty with that standard.

As an example thats been used a lot is involuntary manslaughter.

A person goes to the bar and gets drunk and then decides to drive home. during that drive he crosses center line and hits another car head on, killing its driver.

The suspect had no intent of killing anyone.
The suspect did demonstrate gross negligence by the act of driving drunk and as a result of that negligence resulted in serious physical injury or death to another party.

The constitutionality of gross negligence as a standard is well established in local / state as well as federal legal jurisdictions.

As for immunity deals there is an easy fix to that.
Immunity deals are nullified if the person in question fails to cooperate, lies or commits another crime after they received the immunity deal. It is clearly established Clinton and others lied to the FBI and DOJ during this, nullifying their immunity deals.

As for clinton and winning I keep coming back to the night Clinton was being interviewed with Matt Lauer and he asked about the server issue. After the interview Clinton supposedly went off on her staff, telling them to fix it because "if Trump wins we all hang".

that statement seems to be more and more substantiated every day.

a reply to: introvert

The 18 USC 793 statute is applied the same against civilians in a federal court as well as against military in a military court. While technically separate systems the military system is subject to the same rulings by the supreme court as the civilian system is. The military court system also stops with the US Supreme court as the highest court in the land with the Constitution being the highest law in the land.

Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton

In questioning by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), Director Comey seemed to concede that the statute criminalizing the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence may well be constitutional. That cuts against his testimony throughout the hearing, during which he argued that prosecuting a serious offense without requiring proof of an intent to cause harm would violate American tradition and, quite possibly, the Constitution. The director maintains, however, that using the statute to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would be inappropriate even if the statute is valid. This, he reasons, is because the statute has only been used once since its enactment in 1917. The idea is that using it against her would amount to unlawful selective prosecution. I am puzzled by this argument for several reasons, but I will limit this post to just one of them: The fact that the statute has been used repeatedly in military prosecutions – and that at least one military court decision undermines arguments Director Comey has made about the state-of-mind proof required. The military prosecutions for gross negligence in the mishandling of classified information were discussed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a Wall Street Journal column following Director Comey’s press conference on Tuesday. While it is certainly true that the FBI does not handle such investigations, the military courts are part of the United States justice system. Military cases litigate many of the same statutes and precedents (especially, Supreme Court precedents) that are applicable in the civilian justice system. One relevant military case, United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home. While he was charged under Section 793, it was not under subsection (f) – the subsection of the statute most relevant to Mrs. Clinton, involving the grossly negligent mishandling of classified information – but under subsection (e), which criminalizes willful mishandling of classified information. Nevertheless, the case is highly relevant to our consideration of Director Comey’s recommendation against prosecution.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

click link for entire article.

a reply to: luthier
a reply to: Xtrozero

Jeff Sessions: We're investigating 27 leaks of classified information - Nov 14th 2017

The Justice Department is conducting 27 investigations into classified leaks of information, a sharp increase from recent years, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

At a House oversight hearing on Tuesday, Sessions sought to emphasize that his department is taking the leak "epidemic" seriously.

"Members of the committee, we had about nine open investigations of classified leaks in the last three years," Sessions said. "We have 27 investigations open today. We intend to get to the bottom of these leaks."

Later, he described the numbers in more detail, saying the Obama-era DOJ investigated "three per year" while the Trump-era DOJ has "27 ongoing investigations."

Leak investigations could result in criminal prosecutions or other punitive actions.

Sessions' statements are likely to please President Trump, who has repeatedly vented his anger over leaks, and expressed his disappointment in Sessions and the Justice Department.

click link for article...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sessions' statements are likely to please President Trump, who has repeatedly vented his anger over leaks, and expressed his disappointment in Sessions and the Justice Department

But yes. I never though using Intel sub contractors was a great idea.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Screw all this. Remember Bill Clinton said it was "her turn" to be President. She,s out of the picture now. What I want to know is how much does Chelsea Clinton get for doing nothing on the board of the "Clinton Global Initiative" The non profit corp. she doesn't really do anything. I'm afraid she will come back and try to do Mommy's job that was too incompetent to do. Look what happens when the Bushes got into politics instead of just holding hands with the Saudis, they got us into war with no way to pay for the loss of life and funding among people who didn't have anything to do with 911. If the swamp could be drained I wish it would. I think it's impossible. I think we need a new younger political party. Not socialist or communist because pretty soon you spent every body else's money and there is none left. We need a human party. A party that helps everybody except the rich who made their money off of others misfortunes. They live in the NE USA. These scumbags should forfeit their homes to the homeless and gave a piece of cardboard to live in and then graduate to a shelter. This is the Human Party trickle down economics. Piss on all these old F_cks. Lets get some new people who don't just care about money and power. When Mccain got cancer he said he was going to the best doctors we had. How about he go to the best doctors the rest of us have. Why does the Government get to go to the best doctors. They didn't pay a penny for that privilege, you did. Lets think of a new party that represents us all on this site.it's worth a try.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Zero hedge is a propaganda site that constantly pushes fake stories and doesn’t even employ journalists....

How many fake stories does it take for people to stop baa baa baaing right behind them???

That's Comey himself speaking in that video. Please tell how it's faked?

I think Hillary Clinton snowed investigators into thinking she was technologically challenged.

She may not be a computer geek, but the woman knew the dangers and ramifications of what she was or, I should say, wasn't doing right.

She had a REASON for doing it, Obama knew she was doing it, and it WAS intentional.

Anybody under 40 would look at Hillary and think she probably didn't realize certain things technologically. They see her as an old woman that thinks wiping your server means "with a cloth or something". Poor pitiful old Hillary had no intention of wrongdoing or hiding anything or misleading anybody or selling our country down the river (sarcasm).

Hillary, as senator, served on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knew what's what.

Jurisdiction of that subcommittee:

The Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee has jurisdiction over Department of Defense policies and programs to counter emerging threats (such as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, illegal drugs, and other threats), information warfare and special operations programs, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and Department of Energy non-proliferation programs. The subcommittee also oversees sales of U.S. military technology to foreign countries, and defense and military research and development efforts through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

NOTICE that last sentence....the one about military technology and DARPA.

Hillary is a con artist. She is no technological dummy and her intent was to buffalo the American public.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

are you denying all the evidence from other sources . To just pick out one seams like a distraction .

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Coney already explained it was a directive from the doj. Who are the prosecutors...

so he just straight up lied in his statement to the american people?