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.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler
Thank-you for starting this thread with such a well-written, comprehensive post Grambler!
Is the saying, "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking laws", really a legal principle? If so, Hillary should be punished, regardless of her ignorance, or lack of intent.
originally posted by: Grambler
I will give a summary when I am done, but here is my line by line on it as I am doing it.
First starting around 50 seconds
Discussing memo that said Hillary was innocent before he interviewed her.
Comey says that the reason for this was that he and his investigators were fairly certain after going through much of the evidence that Hillary did not commit a crime.
This is astonishing for two reasons.
First as comey will later admit in the video, he would have not let people like strzok or page, who handled key parts of this investigation, have been anywhere near the investigation if he knew of the bias shown in their texts messages. This means seeing as how he trusted their judgement but now is admitting had he known their bias he wouldn’t have let them on the case, he is basically admitting he took the word of people he should have not had on the case to determine Hillary was probably innocent.
Second, and the far more important point, comey admits that Hillary did enough that she would have committed a crime, however he justification for saying she didn’t was ultimately that she didn’t have “intent”. How could he months before Hillary was interviewed establish the fact that she had no intent? Surely asking her why she did what she did would be a necessary step before deciding what intent was.
This shows comey is lying here. Think about it, if you were him and months before you interview Hillary you are thinking “Man she did some really careless things here. Well if she intended to do them that’s it it’s a crime, if she didn’t then shes off the hook” wouldn’t you at that point wait until you question her on her motivations before you make bold claims you are pretty sure she is innocent? He says that had she lied about something in her interview, or admitted something about intent in it it could have changed his mind, but that is backwards.
What documents did he read that spoke to hillarys intent that made him sure she didn’t intend to remove classified info?
2:00 in the video
Baier asks about the fact that comey already knew Hillary has told lies or mistruths.
He doesn’t deny she lied, but says that he had an good idea she was innocent, and unless she lied to them he wouldn’t be a crime.
Ok that’s true. But if you know someone is lying publicly about this, why would you assume that they had no intent and were innocent until you at least interviewed them. It seems as if despite knowing Hillary did enough to commit the crime, and that she was lying about in in public, he assumed she was innocent months before interviewing her, which is ridiculous.
Also keep in mind by this point comey would have known that Hillarys team had destroyed subpoenaed evidence. So he knows she is lying about this in public, he knows she has destroyed evidence; yet he is going out of his way to know she has no intent despite this?
Now keep in mind, comey will later say in this interview that Trumps supposed lies mean he deserves worse being impeached, and made him want to keep notes and give them out. But with other liars like Hillary, he seemingly has not problem with, further showing his own bias against trump and for hillarys and others.
3:15
Baier brings up the legal standard for grossly negligent says nothing about intent.
Comey says grossly negligent is a kind of intent.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Clearly Hillary disregarded the the need for reasonable care; that is not in dispute. Now did she know there was foreseeable harm?
Well first all people with security clearances I believe must sign documents and be told about the dangers of keeping things on a state servers and dveices, so clearly she would be aware of forseeable harm. In addition, emails show her own team was warning her in 2011 the dangers of using her private server.
Justin Cooper, an aide to former President Bill Clinton, warned in 2011 about "overseas" use and other security issues concerning her emails and her personal BlackBerrys.
"All of your older messages will remain on the server. There is a way for me to move everything on to the new device, but the security whizzes have convinced me that this is a horrible thing to do because you also transfer any viruses, spyware and junk overseas providers hide on there," he told Hillary Clinton in an email dated June 6, 2011.
freebeacon.com...
So comey is clearly full of it. She was grossly negligent; as his original memo originally stated until strzok (who comey admits shouldn’t have been anywhere near the case) changed the wording.
3:55
Bret asks why comey allowed mills to sit in on hillarys interview.
Comey perhaps has a slip, because he says the FBI had already “scrubbed” her conduct and she was no longer a subject.
Boy didn’t they; they gave her immunity and smashed her devices with hammers!
His answer in nonsense! Why would investigators ever let someone who was such an important person in an investigation that they had to be given immunity set in with another subject? What was she given immunity from? There is no justification for this whatsoever.
4:30
Bret asks why no grand jury
Comey says it was run out of hq because he didn’t want leaks, well that is garbage. Look at the leaks against trump.
He says Hillary was not interviewed in front of a grand jury because he didn’t feel they needed one.
But keep in mind at this point comey already knew Hillary and company had destroyed subpoenaed evidence. So why all of this benefit of the doubt about assuming she was innocent, and no grand jury. The destruction of this evidence alone is a crime that should have been charged.
8:10
What is the crime that lead to investigation of Russia starting.
Comey says you open an investigation to see if americans are in cahoots with a foreign nation.
Well that didn’t answer the question at all. Which americans were accused, what was the first piece of evidnce that led to that investigation? Comey answers none of this.
originally posted by: Agit8dChop
originally posted by: theantediluvian
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.
"conscious and voluntary disregard...which is likely to cause" is essentially intent. You have to prove that the person was intentionally doing something that they knew would likely cause "grave injury or harm" for it to be gross negligence.
I dont think so..
need to use reasonable care she needed to use reasonable care to ensure classified information didn't leave secure systems and wasn't disclosed to outside parties.
She knew the requirements, she knew that classified intel must remain on classified systems.
She knowingly, voluntarily and deliberately moved those classified information/s to insecure systems
She didn't expect it to be found out and she didn't expect it to be hacked.
If it does cause damage to people or institutions isn't the concern, its if she did it potentially resulting in that.
She's guilty and got off purely because she offered Loretta Lynch a position in her Administration
Loretta Lynch took the word of the ''team'' when they said dont prosecute.
The ''team'' was run by Mccabe and Comey
When it was realized Clinton wasnt going to win, Mccabe, Comey, Lynch and Obama colluded to get Trump impeached based on fake intelligence.
Comey used his contacts to leak the fake information, Mccabe and Lynch utilized Strzok to get the FISA warrant.
Obama looked the other way
...
originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Are we even watching the same interview?
Comey killed it and made Trump and Fox look like idiots.
He had a perfect answer and reason for every question.