Clinton Campaign Chair Podesta Tipped Off on “Gross Negligence” Phrase BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED

L
o
c
k

h
e
r

u
p

a reply to: olaru12

uhm no.. When you said this -

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

please explain what you meant when you noted "Hillary lost ..." and "I fail to grasp the obsession with her".

If you werent saying she lost and should be left alone then by all means clarify your comment.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, man. I just don't see it as her tipping him off to anything, any more than you or I "tips somebody off" when we're explaining something on ATS. To me it looks like she's letting him know what the most applicable route through the statute is, and why she thinks it won't work.

And, FWIW, I do think that that's precisely why Comey's statement was worded the way it was: if he had stuck with "gross negligence" people would've been all over it from a statutory perspective.

An interesting read, whether we take away the same things from it or not.

ETA - also, I haven't looked for the "handle this properly or it'll blow up" email. If you've got that one handy, I'd love to read it but the initial email was enough to give me a headache trying to decipher it all, so I'm not too keen to go looking for more of the same.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's why I included an Archive.is cache of the article

here you go

a reply to: theantediluvian

I read this yesterday and you are right.

I dont see this as a big deal.

Let me put it into the most favorable light for anti hillary people.

This link is better.

www.zerohedge.com...

Basically Fourney sent Podesta two articles, one from The wash Post as the pundit article shows, and another from a retired lawyer named Mirengoff.

The wash post article downplays Hillarys actions, while Mirengoff suggests she was grossly negligent.

Fourney is sharing the two articles and saying she agrees more with the Wash post article.

None of that is shady in any way.

The implication, which I see no proof of, is that Podesta then took note of the need to not have the phrase gross negligence in comeys report, and contacted Strzok to have him change the phrase.

To summarize, former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy sent John Podesta an email to his Gmail account on March 9, 2016 - with a Washington Post article containing a link to an opinion by a retired D.C. attorney who thinks Clinton committed Gross Negligence. Former FBI Director James Comey's original draft from May 2, contained the phrase, and at some point over the next eight weeks, Peter Strzok - the man who headed up the investigation, removed it - materially changing the legal significance of Clinton's actions, effectively "decriminalizing" her behavior when Comey gave his speech on July 5, 2016.

Again, I think there is nothing to this story.

while podesta may have been in contact with stzrok, this email from fourney in no way even remotely proves that.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: olaru12

uhm no.. When you said this -

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

please explain what you meant when you noted "Hillary lost ..." and "I fail to grasp the obsession with her".

If you werent saying she lost and should be left alone then by all means clarify your comment.

I don't care what happens to her. It's your obsession, not mine. Start a petition to get her indited and prosecuted if it makes you happy!
It would probably be more effective than posting on ATS.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I understand what you are saying. The way I am seeing it is she sent the article to podesta before Comey even wrote the exoneration letter. The article she sent specifically points out gross negligence and Comeys exoneration letter includes phrases used in the article / email.

What are the chances of that occurring as a coincidence. Given Comey started his exoneration before people were even interviewed and the fact the FBI leadership took control of the investigation coupled with all the conflicts that are coming out with the FBI the claim, at least to me, makes sense.

Getting a close phrase or 2 in a letter might be coincidence however the verbiage used in criminal statutes is specific and just seems to be beyond coincidental.

The point is there was cooperation by the FBI and Clinton campaign to protect her from criminal ramifications of her breaking the law.

Just my opinion.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Its in the twitter feed and is a wikileaks email dump. It deals with her Clinton foundation emails and goes along with the one you noted about all the money being in.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, man. I just don't see it as her tipping him off to anything, any more than you or I "tips somebody off" when we're explaining something on ATS. To me it looks like she's letting him know what the most applicable route through the statute is, and why she thinks it won't work.

And, FWIW, I do think that that's precisely why Comey's statement was worded the way it was: if he had stuck with "gross negligence" people would've been all over it from a statutory perspective.

An interesting read, whether we take away the same things from it or not.

Yes this is a great post.

Its no secret I dislike Hillary and think there were a lot of questionable stuff Comey and the intel community did in the two investigations.

However, I dont see the big deal about comey changing the language.

Set aside your feelings on rather or not Hillary was guilty for a minute.

If Comey honestly believed that Hillary acted like an idiot, but didnt do enough to break the law, he is well within his right to make sure his language to not suggest she should be charged.

Now there are other problems with this, such as Comey testifying that he didnt allow anyone to read his statement before he announced it publicly when we know strzok did, and its interesting that it was strzok who changed the language.

But as far as the change itself, that seems to be of little importance as far as proving wrong doing.

a reply to: Grambler

Fair enough... I added your link to the op.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: olaru12

uhm no.. When you said this -

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.

please explain what you meant when you noted "Hillary lost ..." and "I fail to grasp the obsession with her".

If you werent saying she lost and should be left alone then by all means clarify your comment.

I don't care what happens to her. It's your obsession, not mine. Start a petition to get her indited and prosecuted if it makes you happy!
It would probably be more effective than posting on ATS.

Thats nice.. Now care to answer my question or are you just going to deflect?

a reply to: Xcathdra

What are the chances of that occurring as a coincidence.

When two different people are speaking legalese about the same person, and the same action or actions?

I think the chances of them using the same words and phrases are pretty high, honestly. Especially when those two people are both approaching it from the same angle, being that no crime was committed.

The point is there was cooperation by the FBI and Clinton campaign to protect her from criminal ramifications of her breaking the law.

I wouldn't doubt it, I just don't see this as being evidence of it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

or recognizing she did commit a crime and worked to make it appear as if she didnt. Like I said with the crap coming out about the FBI leaderships involvement in this it just seems to convenient they come to the same conclusions independent of each other - that she broke the law and steps need to be taken to hide that fact.

a reply to: Grambler

However, I dont see the big deal about comey changing the language. Set aside your feelings on rather or not Hillary was guilty for a minute. If Comey honestly believed that Hillary acted like an idiot, but didnt do enough to break the law, he is well within his right to make sure his language to not suggest she should be charged.

Precisely. And by changing that specific phrase for another one, he shut down (or at least tried to, anyway) the ability for people to make the negligence argument. If he had left that in there, the furor over that would've been far, FAR bigger than what we saw after his announcement.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grambler

However, I dont see the big deal about comey changing the language. Set aside your feelings on rather or not Hillary was guilty for a minute. If Comey honestly believed that Hillary acted like an idiot, but didnt do enough to break the law, he is well within his right to make sure his language to not suggest she should be charged.

Precisely. And by changing that specific phrase for another one, he shut down (or at least tried to, anyway) the ability for people to make the negligence argument. If he had left that in there, the furor over that would've been far, FAR bigger than what we saw after his announcement.

Yeah but he did more than just change / remove gross negligence. He then added his own element to the statute that doesnt exist in that section - intent.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grambler

However, I dont see the big deal about comey changing the language. Set aside your feelings on rather or not Hillary was guilty for a minute. If Comey honestly believed that Hillary acted like an idiot, but didnt do enough to break the law, he is well within his right to make sure his language to not suggest she should be charged.

Precisely. And by changing that specific phrase for another one, he shut down (or at least tried to, anyway) the ability for people to make the negligence argument. If he had left that in there, the furor over that would've been far, FAR bigger than what we saw after his announcement.

Yeah but he did more than just change / remove gross negligence. He then added his own element to the statute that doesnt exist in that section - intent.

But that is a whole differnt issue.

I agree, the intent thing is ridiculous.

In fact, the fact that Coomey acted as a prosecutor instead of investigator in the first place was ridiculous.

His job was to investigate, and then the DOJ should have decided rather or not to prosecute.

But none of that means that Comey changing the language or Fourney sending Podesta articles is somehow nefarious.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grambler

However, I dont see the big deal about comey changing the language. Set aside your feelings on rather or not Hillary was guilty for a minute. If Comey honestly believed that Hillary acted like an idiot, but didnt do enough to break the law, he is well within his right to make sure his language to not suggest she should be charged.

Precisely. And by changing that specific phrase for another one, he shut down (or at least tried to, anyway) the ability for people to make the negligence argument. If he had left that in there, the furor over that would've been far, FAR bigger than what we saw after his announcement.

Yeah but he did more than just change / remove gross negligence. He then added his own element to the statute that doesnt exist in that section - intent.

I understand that, but that doesn't bolster the connection presented in the OP.

...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well I was gonna reply but then it woulda looked like I was just having a conversation with myself

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grambler

However, I dont see the big deal about comey changing the language. Set aside your feelings on rather or not Hillary was guilty for a minute. If Comey honestly believed that Hillary acted like an idiot, but didnt do enough to break the law, he is well within his right to make sure his language to not suggest she should be charged.

Precisely. And by changing that specific phrase for another one, he shut down (or at least tried to, anyway) the ability for people to make the negligence argument. If he had left that in there, the furor over that would've been far, FAR bigger than what we saw after his announcement.

Yeah but he did more than just change / remove gross negligence. He then added his own element to the statute that doesnt exist in that section - intent.

But that is a whole differnt issue.

I agree, the intent thing is ridiculous.

In fact, the fact that Coomey acted as a prosecutor instead of investigator in the first place was ridiculous.

His job was to investigate, and then the DOJ should have decided rather or not to prosecute.

But none of that means that Comey changing the language or Fourney sending Podesta articles is somehow nefarious.

Sure but Comey was not the one who changed the words in the exoneration letter.

FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey's description of Clinton to 'extremely careless'

Washington (CNN)A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter.

click link

On the other hand McCabe was promoted to placed in charge of the Clinton mess. His wife got funds from the Clinton supporters, like McCauliffe.. Strzok worked for McCabe during that time period.