Of course, Liberals will ignore the fact that Comey admits SHE BROKE THE LAW.  But think about this:  This woman is a habitual liar, lied during the investigation, and has broken the law.  What part of that attracts you idiots to her, and makes you support her for President?

Her fellow travelers will ignore any crimes, through willful ignorance, blind partisanship, or gross stupidity.

President Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.  He was impeached for lying to Congress.  That was yesterday.  Today with the corrupt administration who lies all the time wouldn't even bring him before Congress because lies are acceptable in the Democrat Party.

Hillary lied to Congress and now she is running for President. 

Funny how that works out.

Only if they see she looks like she is not going to win will they do anything about it and then they will replace her.  Mark my words.

President Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.  He was impeached for lying to Congress. 

Fair enough, once she's elected they can impeach her too. It won't end her presidency.

Seriously, the right is like a pack of rabid dogs snarling over a couple of juicy bones which turn out to be nothing but cardboard.

Seriously, the right is like a pack of rabid dogs snarling over a couple of juicy bones which turn out to be nothing but cardboard.

“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.”
― Robertson Davies , Tempest-Tost

Well said. The administration specifically says that Hillary got a special pass from justice, and the left applauds it...

pat the timing of the impeachment of slick willie was also a concern , he was in his second term , just over the halfway mark , if he had been convicted and removed from office that would have made AlGore  as the incumbent , and it isn't often an incumbant president is defeated ( though it does happen), so politics also played a part in it there , convict and put a sitting president in who could run for another 2 terms  of his own for a total of 10 years if he won.

Someone has to inject some sense into this article, so I will volunteer.

First of all, there is nothing shocking or even surprising about this conclusion. It has been heavily predicted for many many months. About six months ago a major news organization, which one escapes me at the moment, had someone investigate how the two applicable statutes had been enforced in the past in circumstances similar to Clinton's , and they reported that cases such as Clinton's have not been prosecuted.  Dan Abrams, the legal expert for ABC News wrote two lengthy articles early this year about this and also said Clinton would not be prosecuted . His reasons in those articles were the exact reasons Comey gave the other day. There have been a number of other respected legal experts with experience in national security law who have previously predicted no indictment, again for the same reasons Comey gave. These analyses and predictions predate all this current handwringing. 

Second, in order to indict the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties you need a slam dunk case. Tell me how you construe a slam dunk case from this when numerous esteemed legal experts were saying that she shouldn't even be indicted. Alan Dershowitz wrote an article about this yesterday, not only did he say the case did not merit an indictment, he also said that the bar SHOULD be higher when the subject is the presumptive nominee of a major party three weeks before the convention after all the voters in the primaries have spoken. Without a slam dunk case the judicial system should not be injecting itself into the presidential election. Clinton would have been acquitted if indicted and the voters would then still be without their chosen candidate.

Some fools are saying the Clintons are getting special treatment in Comey's decision. It is not the Clinton's that are getting 'special' treatment, if any is being given, it is the presidential election process. And there is no special treatment anyway because too many experts have said the offense is not indictable. It would be a reach no matter who the defendant was. Every offense is not indicted even if it meets someone's idea of the technical definition of a crime. Every single day in America there are many many people that are NOT indicted for a crime for which there was evidence of guilt. There are various reasons for this outside the scope of this comment.

People who are upset can vote for Trump or Johnson. Someone has to.

How Unamerican of you. How close to an election do we have to be for our political masters to be immune from prosecution? 

One law for mere commoners, one for the democratic elite.  The head of the FBI changed a criminal statute to invent a new level of intent to keep her from going to jail. Terrible days. 

Congressional hearing not going well for Republicans.      Comey : No precedent for prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence. He also said intent is a BASIC and fundamental consideration for a criminal prosecution concerning mishandling classified material.

This is going nowhere for the Republicans.

No precedent for prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence.

So no one can ever be the first one charged with a crime. Got it.

He also said intent is a BASIC and fundamental consideration for a criminal prosecution concerning mishandling classified material

Yes, Congress obviously considered it. They drafted statutes requiring actual intent and statutes requiring gross negligence. He's conflating the two.  

I have watched the entire committee meeting. Comey has been brilliant. Only the nutjobs, of which there are unfortunately many, will persist on demanding blood after this hearing.

He admitted substituting a different intent standard than the one in the statute. Prosecutors aren't supposed to do that.

Did I miss where he cleared Hillary of lying to everyone for the last 18 months about every aspect of this case?  At the end of the day, the decision not to prosecute will fade away. The last year of lies that Comey demonstrated Clinton has been spreading won't. Have fun supporting a liar. 

If Trump has any interest in winning the election, which I doubt, he will cut numerous ads of Comey's press conference where he destroy's her credibility. 

Another thing worth mentioning. The UTTER CLOWN that Republicans call their presidential nominee, Donald Trump, has repeatedly said that David Petraeus was convicted for "much less" than what Clinton did.   Comey said today that the exact opposite is true. What Petraeus did was much worse, according to Comey, who is completely familiar with that case. .

So much for listening to Trump as anything other than a buffoon.

This whole thing is a matter of perception, perspective, interpretation and corruption in this case.

I don't think any of the people who have commented on this article ever expected Hillary to be charged or convicted of a crime.  After all she is a member of the Democratic Party, the party of tolerance and equality and she is a Clinton, a family known for their honesty and unselfish giving of themselves to the people.

The Mafia has hijacked our country!!!

What Clinton did was stupid, sloppy and careless, no question … apparently the letter of the law was not violated, but, if anyone can cite the violation of any applicable law, I'm open to an argument for prosecution.

I am not a Clinton apologist.

One recurring phenomenon does piss me off however, that being selective indignation … HYPOCRISY.

Crimes were in fact committed by other administrations without a peep of indignation from partisans on the perpetrators' side!

Wrong-is-wrong-is-wrong …

… and so is looking-the-other way when one of your guys perpetrate it.

She violated the law. Comey stated such. They just declined to prosecute. Because... well, you know why.

Intent can't be a requirement for gross negligence. 

I don't have time to debate you A Mac, but a start would be to read the law.

Another good thing to do is acknowledge she lied not just once, but every time and lied to Congress, which got Bill Clinton impeached.

So being one of the legal minds on this forum tell us what your perception, perspective and interpretation is.  I'll see it later during the day.  Have a nice one.

Crimes were in fact committed by other administrations

Aha ... its Bush's fault !

Apparently the letter of the law was not violated?  Pfft!

Here you go Amac

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Keep looking . Maybe you'll find something to pin on her before she dies of old age.

Oh come on John.  I have told you 1000 times.  She is above the law.  No one can EVER pin anything on her and if you can't admit this is proof, then that is your own problem.   I noticed you didn't want to discuss her clear violations of the law.  WHAT A SURPRISE!

Hell, they didn't even have to go past section B to convict her.

I thought Comey was very impressive. Dump that asshole Trump and run Comey for president and you might have something.

LOL what's the matter John?  Don't want to try to defend her any more?

96,

what is the 13th word in paragraph (a)?

I understand the definition of intent Amac, section F deals with NEGLIGENCE.   BTW don't you think setting up a private server when she knew better shows intent of any sort at all?

Tell you what AMAC let's forget the emails.  Can you tell me what the penalty is for lying to congress?   Just in case you don't let me help you.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally


(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

-snip-

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Now do you want to try and claim she did not lie to congress?  Can you explain why she is getting away with intentionally lying to congress?  Sorry Amac but there is no way ANYONE can defend her on this.  Probably why John quit trying./s

Comey explained all this extensively. Why are you re-litigating a settled matter?

Sorry John,

He explained that she lied to congress but no one can explain why she got away with it.  Other than SHE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Maybe you didnt see his tesrtimony.

But everyone knew you fanatics will never give it up. They are already planning more hearings against this woman.

Yup - and the State Department is reopening their investigation on her.

How well you fit this description John.

Can someone tell me how out of 55,000 emails the FBI examined, none of them were marked "classified"?

Why do you keep lying? 

You are the one that is lying if you continue saying that the FBI found emails "marked classified". Not a single one of the emails had a classified header.  Three out of tens of thousands had a small c handwritten on them. The committee established that in order to be marked classified they would have needed the header.

I'll stick with Comey. you stick with your fantasy that classified markings don't make an email classified. 

Comey said over 100 were marked classified BEFORE she sent them in his speech Geez John pull your head out.

96,

There is a reason that intent is taken into consideration even when applied to negligence.

Intent addresses motive, negligence to the failure to take proper care.

Set aside your anti-Clinton bias and consider why such a legal distinction exists; would you ascribe the same penalty on two different individuals committing the same act if one did so out of sloppiness, stupidity or ignorance while the other did with the INTENT to violate a law in order to do harm?

Mac - Consider the following -

The LAW sez - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away
any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing,willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."

Note - Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so

Comey sez -  But Comey also reiterated that he would go as far as to fire someone in the FBI's employ who handled classified information the way the Clinton team did.

And - 12:12 p.m. Pushing back on Republican characterizations of his recommendation adhering to a "double standard" when it comes to Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said it would instead be a "double standard" if the former secretary of state was prosecuted.

"You know what would be a double standard? If she was prosecuted for gross negligence," Comey noted. "She was negligent. That I can establish."

You have no argument.  She violated the law as 96 and I have shown.  She is guilty as hell - BUT SHE IS A CLINTON so no justice will be served.

You have no argument.  She violated the law as 96 and I have shown.  She is guilty as hell - BUT SHE IS A CLINTON so no justice will be served.

I have not said she is "not guilty," but I have asked several times, among other things, whether or not any of the documents in question were retroactively classified or re-classified.

As for selective indignation, indictments, etc., both sides are guilty.

Wrong-is-wrong.

But Comey also reiterated that he would go as far as to fire someone in the FBI's employ who handled classified information the way the Clinton team did.

That is selective setting of double standards.  She breaks the law and nothing happens.  One of his FBI folks break the law and they get fired.  Duhhhhhhh.

The same penalty?  Perhaps not.  Getting off Scott free for one and 10 years for the other?   Give me a frigging break!   So I guess the next time she hands out classified info we should just keep our mouths shut.  We already know the outcome.   Care to explain why in closing Comey said if anyone else did this they would not necessarily get away with it?   Besides the fact that anyone else isn't Hillary?   Sorry AMac but I think letting her get away with this is obstruction of justice and setting a prescience for the same incompetence and negligence for 4 more years in the worlds most powerful position.   Seems more than a little fucked up to me.  She broke the law.  Next time you break the law tell the judge you didn't mean any harm and let me how it turns out.  

Hey I notice you keep avoiding the whole lying to congress thing too.   What is your explanation for her getting away with that?   I would really like to hear your honest opinion.

Hey I notice you keep avoiding the whole lying to congress thing too.   What is your explanation for her getting away with that?   I would really like to hear your honest opinion.

I addressed that earlier … you need to pay better attention if you're going to play "gotcha".

I asked why Congress hasn't pursued perjury charges. It's for the Congress to answer, and as long as they avoid going there, there's as much suspicion on them as on Clinton.

As for Clinton getting away without penalty, prosecution, etc., I already addressed that as well, and not you nor anyone else gave a viable response. There's a real hypocrisy involved when on the one hand you and others correctly assert that Clinton should not be treated any differently than anyone else, YET YOU WANT HER PROSECUTED USING A STANDARD THAT HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR 99 YEARS!

Make up your mind or explain YOUR double standard!

But - that standard is still there and is still a viable standard.

But - that standard is still there and is still a viable standard.

The issue is not the viability of the standard, it's the precedent in terms of its implementation. 

Third time … I agree that the Clintons should not be treated any differently than any other individuals; that works both ways … to break a 99-year on-going precedent because some want to stick it to the Clintons … is hypocritical in terms of extending them or failing to extend them standards if doing so "treats them differently."

Can't have it both ways.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy succinctly clarifies what Comey just admitted doing:

Director Comey’s explanation is now clear, though he did not lay it out in his report earlier this week: The statute criminalizing gross negligence in mishandling classified information is invalid because it does not require proof of intent to improperly transmit classified information to places it is not supposed to be or to people not authorized to have it.

The director claims that the statute has only been used once since its enactment in 1917, and therefore its invocation as written in Mrs. Clinton’s case would be suspect. He implies that the only way to save the statute is for the Justice Department to do what prosecutors routinely tell judges that they are not permitted to do: rewrite the statute – in this instance, to add a higher mens rea proof requirement .

Read more at: nationalreview

I asked that any/all violated laws be specifically cited.

I did not ask that we double down on what is clearly the point of this article …

The Federal Records Act

The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it. 

Comey essentially admitted she violated the law as written. It's only by ignoring the "gross negligence" language that she avoided indictment. 

(f)

Let me make a suggestion.  Since all of this is based on perception, perspective and interpretation we could put Hillary on trial right here on this forum. 

A Mac says he is not a Hillary apologist so as with Hillary when she defended the rapist who got off and destroyed her faith in the "Lie Detector" test forever, I hope he wouldn't mind being the prosecutor in this case and try to convict Hillary Clinton of breaking the law as written. 

He is used quite often as a legal mind on this site and the other legal mind on this site is Buzz.  I don't know if there are any others, but if there are, please let us know and also let us know if you would like to be the Defendant's attorney for non other than an exercise.  Present evidence proving she is guilty from the prosecutor and and showing how she is not guilty in this case by the Defendant's attorney.

If A Mac decides to take on this task, but no other legal mind will volunteer, I will do my best to defend her if a lie detector test isn't part of the bargain.  I would even allow others who wanted to defend her participate to help me out.

Now we have to come to a verdict, which may not be as easy to come by, since I don't think we can come up with anyone to be on the jury, based on the people we have to choose from.

We will have to have some sort of moderator to keep "Order in the court" though, I'm sure.

I will show the prosecutors have not proven within a shadow of a doubt this person is guilty of the crime she is accused of in this case even though I do not have a background in law, but with the help of those who feel this way we will wade through it.

At this time I'm not able to participate because I have to get on with my day.  If you want to do it and start right away while most people will be here, then A Mac has to accept the position as Prosecutor and someone else will have to accept the position as the Defendant's attorney.

A Mac has to accept the position as Prosecutor and someone else will have to accept the position as the Defendant's attorney.

Six,

I am not taking the position that Clinton is "not guilty" -- I am taking the position that her guilt is not subject to prosecution. There should be some consequences, no question, but, based on the "intent" specifications I have posted within this thread, the "letter of the law" was not violated.

based on the "intent" specifications I have posted within this thread, the "letter of the law" was not violated.

That's wrong. Comey just spent today admitting that. He's said she violated the letter of the law, he just believes that the "letter" of the law is not enforceable and that a different standard requiring intent to harm the US that is  not contained in the statute book, applies. 

He's said she violated the letter of the law,

that is really not true. According to Comey,  intent is part of the letter of the law by default.

Six,

I am not taking the position that Clinton is "not guilty" -- I am taking the position that her guilt is not subject to prosecution. There should be some consequences, no question, but, based on the "intent" specifications I have posted within this thread, the "letter of the law" was not violated.

Then this can be the Grand jury instead of a trial.  That works for me.  I think it would be interesting to have to defend the other side and everyone could participate.  I know we would have to have some sort of moderation, not necessarily from NT moderators, but someone who can know what is acceptable in the proceedings and what is not.  Each person would have to understand they are presenting evidence or defence against evidence to the Grand jury and not start fighting among themselves or it would just turn out to be a cluster....

Then this can be the Grand jury instead of a trial.

Six,

That's what we're de facto already having in the course of the thread … and we're going to continue to get the thumbs down, the parsing of words … I have responded thus far to the extent I am able to do so.

Let's see where the thread goes.

Six,

That's what we're de facto already having in the course of the thread … and we're going to continue to get the thumbs down, the parsing of words … I have responded thus far to the extent I am able to do so.

Let's see where the thread goes.

I understand your position and upon further consideration, I don't think this idea would go very far as we really don't want to do the Grand jury or trial experiment as attorney's dealing with something contrary to our perspective, perception or interpretation.

I know you and I would give it our best regardless of our personal feelings about the matter as we should in a court setting.

I know you and I would give it our best regardless of our personal feelings about the matter as we should in a court setting.

I believe that to be so … and in the event we allowed our personal feelings to erode our objectivity, I have every confidence that either one of us would respectfully apprise the other and take the high road.

Ultimately, this issue becomes partisan … both sides are so predisposed. 

"Carelessness" is not "intent" … 

GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT - 

At the moment, Republican members of Congress are getting dangerously close to calling Comey "a liar" …

The reality, neither Republicans nor Democrats can currently be objective in questioning Comey given the coming Presidential election.

Violating the "spirit" of a law is not synonymous with violating the "letter".

Neither is excusable … but only one is prosecutable.

The statute I cited is not a "specific intent" statute. It only requires gross negligence.

SEan,

Gross Negligence requires a finding of willful and wanton misconduct. 

Willful misconduct generally means a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy. It means intentionally doing that which should not be done or intentionally failing to do that which should be done, knowing that injury will probably result.

The term is applied in various legal contexts, such as employment and, torts, and public offices.

Yes. Any reasonable person would know that putting classified information on a server less secure than gmail despite being told repeatedly how to handle classified information creates an unacceptable risk of bad things happening. 

What do you think gross negligence is? That's the standard, a bad result that is unintended but foreseeable.

What do you think gross negligence is? That's the standard, a bad result that is unintended but foreseeable.

I addressed both negligence and gross negligence and also indicated that "intent" … in such cases over the past 99 years (with a single exception) … has been included in the standard.

I agree with all who say that the Clintons, et al, should not be treated any differently from others alleged to have committed the same or similar acts; AND YET, WHEN THE 99 YEAR IMPOSED STANDARD IS USED AS A WAY AROUND PROSECUTION, some of you want the standard to be different BECAUSE SHE'S A CLINTON.

Make up your minds.

We have to go through all this over and over until all the hot air runs out of this sagging balloon.

Comey said, specifically, that it would be unfair to try Clinton using a standard that has only been used once in the past 99 years.

He also said that intent was lacking and he would not indict on these facts without intent.

Sean, why were none of the 55,000 emails marked "classified"?

They were marked, as Comey indicated.

Three out 55,000 emails were marked with a handwritten c. 

-

"none of the emails sent or received by Hillary Clinton were "marked classified," which FBI Director James Comey knew when he said "a very small number" of them "bore markings indicating" classified material. Well, today, he admitted that  none of those three emails were properly marked classified , and that any reasonable person with knowledge of classification markings would have concluded that these were not classified"

thedailybanter

I don't understand why I have to keep saying the same thing over and over. Did none of you look at what Comey said?

Learn your terms Mac -

" 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." -  dictionary.law

" There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

"Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an  intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes  gross negligence  is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to  gross negligence , they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never  intend  the bad things that happen due to  gross negligence . [National Review,  7/5/16 ]"

Director Comey  used the phrase seriously, or excuse me, extremely careless to describe Hillary Clinton's use of classified information on her private unauthorized email server. Well, that phrase means something to lawyers and judges. That is the phrase they use to explain what gross negligence is, and we can put the statute, the criminal statute up on the screen and I'll read, it's very short. 18 USC section 793-F, “whoever being entrusted with national security documents,” and that includes by the way classified information, “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.” So the key phrase there is “gross negligence.” What is that? If you look up any standard jury instruction, or Black’s law dictionary for example, you’re going to find the definition of “gross negligence” is “extremely careless. ” So the moment he said she was extremely careless, I think most lawyers probably thought well, he's obviously going to recommend criminal prosecution, and yet he did not. It's hard to understand.

So the reality is, Jim Comey said there was a crime here, he just decided not to prosecute it. But he was clear, Kim, he said there was in fact, without any doubt, gross negligence, his wording, extreme carelessness, that is gross negligence under the law. That's a violation."

mediamatters

you are quoting a source

mediamatters

that does not agree with your conclusions. rofl

Why don't you get a life and get off NT - save a lot of us the embarrassment of dealing with you.

I made my points - the LEGAL experts sez she's guilty and question WHY WASN'T SHE CHARGED.

I know - way above your brain power.

which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons

That standard has not been applied without the standard of intent in all such cases save for one … in the last 99 years.

Show me your proof.

Show me your proof.

Those are among the elements of a crime that the FBI looks for in investigations concerning the mishandling of classified information, Comey said Tuesday. The cases that prosecuted for that offense historically involve intentional or wilful mishandling of classified information, signs of disloyalty to the United States, efforts to obstruct justice or the disclosure of vast quantities of secret records.

"We do not see those things here," he said.

The Petraeus case is "more in line with the types of cases that have been prosecuted, which is when information was clearly marked or there is a significant amount of it in paper," said Mark Zaid, a Washington national security lawyer.

Even so, Comey, in an extraordinary public statement at FBI headquarters, left no doubt that the FBI had detected significant problems in her email practices as secretary of state.

The FBI chief said that in the course of the investigation, 113 emails were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. He also said that "several thousand work-related emails" were not among the group of 30,000 that Clinton turned over in 2014.

He said there was evidence of "potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." But, he said, there was no evidence that anyone intended to violate any laws and that the FBI's judgment was "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Criminal charges could theoretically have been brought but would "definitely have created a new precedent" given the large number of government officials who are similarly lax in their treatment of sensitive records, Zaid said.

"While it could have been prosecuted, I think as a practical reality, the precedent it would have created would have had far-reaching ramifications throughout the entire system," he said.

And …

And while there is a federal law dealing with "gross negligence," Comey said that does not mean prosecutors shouldn't consider the mindset of a subject when deciding whether to bring charges, by "American tradition."

He said that because of "grave concerns" over use of the gross negligence law, it has been used by federal prosecutors only once in its 99-year history, and that case involved espionage.

"When I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it that they were doing something that was against the law," Comey said today. "No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case ... Nobody would. Nobody did."

• unlike other cases prosecuted under the Espionage Act, the FBI has not suggested that Clinton intentionally shared government secrets with people not authorized to see them.
• - The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be "removed from its proper place," a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.
• - Vladeck said the law is not "well suited for careless discussion of information in unsecured media that doesn't dispossess the government of that information or direct it right into the hands of a foreign power.".
• - Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.
• - Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said Comey's decision was "completely consistent" with every case brought for leaking classified government information.
• + Defendants in other cases include Stephen Kim, Lowell's client who pleaded guilty to leaking State Department documents to the press, as well as former C.I.A. Director General David Petraeus.
• + Comey said the FBI "did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information." But he said it did find "evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling a very sensitive, highly classified information.".
• - His recommendation, which Attorney General Loretta Lynch previously said she would accept, angered Republicans who said her actions should be punished.
• - Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump reacted to the news from his Twitter account, saying, "The system is rigged.
• - But Attorney General Eric Holder pursued a misdemeanor under another part of the law, and Petraeus pleaded guilty.
• - Petraeus also admitted to lying to the FBI about sharing the information with Paula Broadwell, his biographer and lover.
• + Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists'Project on Government Secrecy, said Clinton's cooperation with FBI investigators also may have helped her avoid charges.
• - Legal precedent suggests that Clinton is unlikely to face a misdemeanor charge for recklessness because recent cases that ended with misdemeanors began as much larger felony charges against individuals who intended to leak information.
• - In 2010, Thomas Drake, a whistleblower from the NationalSecurity Agency who helped expose the government's warrantless surveillance of Americans, was charged with espionage after the government accused him of bringing five classified documents home.
• + Drake pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count for exceeding authorized use of a computer.
• + Former president Bill Clinton's national security adviser pleaded guilty in 2005 to smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives by stuffing them under his clothes.
• - He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to two years of probation.

which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons

That standard has not been applied without the standard of intent in all such cases save for one … in the last 99 years.

Already forgot about the Nixon Impeachment then eh?

Already forgot about the Nixon Impeachment then eh?

Sorry, the one exception to the standard came c.1924; now, let's move to the "W" years and the mountain of names, dates, interviews, faked documents … say the word.

DERAIL - DERAIL - DERAIL

C'mon Mac, you're better than that.  At least you didn't try to throw in Harding and his "Tea Pot" stuff

DERAIL - DERAIL - DERAIL

Precedent-precedent-precedent!

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said in a news conference Tuesday detailing the FBI investigation and his decision.

Several legal experts agreed with Comey's conclusion that there was no recent precedent for bringing such a case without evidence of willful intent or gross negligence, and they said it would have been difficult to convince a jury to convict Clinton based on the evidence.

This whole article from Politico about Comey's testimony is worth reading. It catalogues some of the lies she was caught telling both media and Congress and how lies are typically used by prosecutors to demonstrate intent to commit a crime (not just to show gross negligence):

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."

Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."

"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.

"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned."...

"I'm not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?" Gowdy inquired.

Comey responded, "Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution."

"Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?" Gowdy asked. "Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job you would prove intent as you just referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record, and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. Would you argue all that under heading of content--intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme, when it started, when it ended and number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified, you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also probably under common scheme or plan argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal. Two days ago, director, you said a reasonable person in her should have known a private email is no place to send and receive classified information. You're right."

"An average person does know not to do that. This is no average person," Gowdy said. "This is a former first lady, a former United States senator, and a former secretary of state that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but he says it now. She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account."

He continued, "So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don't know whether or not she was. And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent."

"You say careless but not intentionally. You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove," Gowdy continued. "Very rarely do defendants announce, 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence, or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence."

politico

Sean, there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton knew that she was storing classified material on her private server. Comey said this specifically today in one of his answers.

You might wish to say she had to know that classified material was being stored on her home server.  Comey said that they could not prove that.

This has all the stank of a witch hunt.

Comey went back 100 years to look for cases to justify charging her based on "gross negligence" and he says that standard has not been used. The reason no justice dept attempts to use "gross negligence" in classified material cases is because it is deemed by the Justice Depts. (multiple over many decades) to be potentially unconstitutional.

Comey aced this hearing.

Only unreasonable fanatics like yourself insist on going down this ridiculous rabbit hole.

Does it bother you, at all,that Comey has proven that she lied to Congress and the media for the last year? Does it bother you at all that you parroted these lies in I would hope was good faith? 

Comey has destroyed any remaining credibility that she might have. 

Gowdy simultaneously destroys Clinton and Comey's rationale for not showing specific intent. 

rofl

The issue was her intent in handling classified material. Gowdy demonstrated exactly nothing about that.

False statements are used to show intent to commit the underlying crime. Comey and Gowdy agree on that.  

The underlying crime is not the private server, the underlying crime is mishandling classified material. Gowdy did not demonstrate that.

False statements are used to show intent to commit the underlying crime. Comey and Gowdy agree on that.  

That's when those false statements directly point to specific intent to commit a crime; it's not a rule-of-thumb (pun not intended).

Gowdy demonstrates that she had intent to set up a private email system . He does not demonstrate that she had intent to use the private server to handle classified material.

What do you imagine the job of secretary of state entails if not handling classified information? 

Oh Sean,  I believe the FBI conclusion was that 110 or so of her e-mails were classified at the time .

Is it your position that in 4 years of being Secretary of State that Clinton received only 110 classified communications?

NONE of the emails bore a CLASSIFIED header. NONE. None of the 55,000. NONE. If she expected to receive classified email on her home server, why did NONE of the 55,000 bear the CLASSIFIED designation?

OBVIOUSLY Hillary Clinton has another method of obtaining and processing classified information. She read it at the office. Or had another method of obtaining that classified material.  She has already said this, as a matter of fact.

I know that what I said went over your head Gunny. It's ok.

Comey said that some of the emails were marked. Is he a liar?

Comey said that some of the emails were marked. Is he a liar?

Incorrect! 3 out of 30,000 e-mails are involved and they were not so-classified … they contained "little c's" (stray markings) and were in fact not classified documents.

Some e-mails (thousands) were RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED …

NO CRIMINAL INTENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED … the law-is-the-law.

For the record, there have been no formal Congressional recommendations for prosecutorial movements on perjury.

Also for the record, THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF CLINTON'S E-MAILS WERE HACKED!

Comey specifically stated that several of the emails were portion marked.

Apparently, the talking point of the day is that all of Clinton's lies that Comey demonstrated are okay because some documents only had classified markings on them to show the information was classified, rather than a big red classified stamp. Or something. The very epitome of a distinction without a difference, but you can understand how desperate liberals are now that their canddidate has been demonstrated to be more dishonest than Nixon.

The desperation is so bad that liberals are now arguing that the former head of the State Department is so dumb that she can't be expected to understand what classified markings are and that her supposed ignorance somehow excuses every lie she told about every aspect of the fiasco she created. 

Anything rather than address the staggering amount of lies she's engaged in and their unquestioning acceptance of them, I guess. 

Apparently, the talking point of the day is that all of Clinton's lies that Comey demonstrated are okay because some documents only had classified markings on them to show the information was classified, rather than a big red classified stamp.

That's YOUR talking point; in fact, Comey corroborated the information regarding the documents and the only THREE out of 30,000 e-mails that were actually in question.

You accuse others of doing the very thing you've done.

What are you even talking about? What information do you imagine he corrobabred?  he reiterartred yet again, the myriad ways Clinton lied when talking about the server to the press and to Congress. If you think his version of what happens corroborates or helps Clinton in any way other than not indicting her, you are sorely misinformed. 

He found over 100 emails that were classified at the time Clinton either sent or received them. That's not a debatable point. It's a fact.

Amac Comey straight up said in his speech she sent info that was marked classified.

I have the advantage over you of having seen the hearing.  It came out that NONE of the 55,000 emails examined by the FBI had "classified" affixed to them. NONE. Three had a handwritten c on them which was supposed to mean they contained classified information but it became unclear as to whether or not Clinton was supposed to have been expected to recognize that.

I think it is stunning that Clinton did not receive a single email marked "classified" on her home server.

Clinton was getting classified information at her office or at the US diplomatic facilities she was visiting as she traveled around the world.

This is simply ridiculous. The information was classified and marked accordingly. Of course Clinton is supposed to be able to recognize basic marking. do you think she's that stupid that she can't even decode something that basic? 

This is simply ridiculous. The information was classified and marked accordingly.

Your assertion here is what is ridiculous.

Portion marking is a main staple of classified material control training. If she didn't understand that, she's incompetent. 

I can't wait until Clinton wins the general election, so you people will finally shut the fuck up about this and start whining about something new.

We know how much much you enjoy and celebrate  being lied to. 

Ambi, the Republican candidate has said numerous times that Petraeus was convicted and punished for doing "less than Clinton did".

Comey said today that the truth was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Trump has repeatedly claimed in his campaign speeches. Exact opposite.

We cannot elect Trump. His carelessness is light years beyond anything Clinton has done.

Republicans, and anyone else, is welcome to use this e-mail issue to decide who they want to vote for.

FBI Director Comey definitively answered the prosecution issue today. For these Republicans in Congress to continue investigating this matter is a political witch hunt.

Comey said Clinton should not be prosecuted because the case could not be proven. That should be the end of it, in an official governmental sense.

A number of the Republicans today said they want more hearings.

For the record, Sean, the Justice Department has not prosecuted on the basis of gross negligence but once (in an espionage case) since 1917.

Imposing a standard arbitrarily and capriciously in the face of long-standing precedent, particularly in a situation with heavy political implications, cannot be taken lately.

There is an incorrect assumption that this is contrary to such precedent … THAT ASSUMPTION IS INACCURATE/WRONG!

Oh. Since they only prosecuted one person, Hillary is free to break the law I guess. I must have missed the part in the criminal code about how many people must be prosecuted before a Clinton can be.

It's a very large number.

Oh. Since they only prosecuted one person, Hillary is free to break the law I guess. I must have missed the part in the criminal code about how many people must be prosecuted before a Clinton can.

Oh … prosecutors rely heavily on precedent as do the courts.

You missed that as well.

(i) what legal principles are involved

(ii) what is the relevant law regarding these principles 

(iii) what evidence will we need to prove or defend the case

FYI:

STARE DECISIS

Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

The doctrine of stare decisis applies to a decisions by a judge, not prosecutorial discretion.

we know the DOJ has prosecuted someone for gross negligence under this statute. If there is  a history of not persecuting, how many times has the DOJ let people slide under this statute? That's the relevant number. 

The doctrine of stare decisis applies to a decisions by a judge, not prosecutorial discretion.

I noted that, Sean; I posted it as an example of protocol in legal proceedings.

Comey said that it would not be fair to indict her on the basis of a standard that has only been used once in the past 100 years. The Justice Dept. does not use gross negligence as a standard in these cases. That is what the man said.

Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Are you worried about Trump?

he Justice Dept. does not use gross negligence as a standard in these cases. That is what the man said.

Lorretta Lynch is not supposed to rewrite the laws passed by Congress. But as Comey admits, she did. The promise of a second term as AG must have been too much to pass up.

 If Clinton were not running for president the hearing today would not have existed

I agree. Anyone who is not the presumptive Democratic nominee for President would have simply been indicted. 

These people will never be satisfied Mac. We can take solace in the fact that this is not going to decide the election.

If Clinton were not running for president the hearing today would not have existed. It was entirely political.

I won't further argue the issue of retroactively classified documents.

If someone can definitively document for me that there is no such animal, I'll concede the point.

Otherwise …

Washington (AFP) - The US State Department released over 4,000 more of the emails former secretary of state Hillary Clinton kept on a private server and revealed that some 150 others have been retroactively classified.

npr

AMac all information both military and government are "born" so to say or created with a minimal classification until they go through the classification process and assigned whatever classification they end up with, they start out as either sensitive or confidential from the get go and get up or downgraded during the process.

 least that's the way it was taught when I was in service, just as how they are to be handled is taught from the onset.

 It would appear that things have changed since I was taught , but  it still does not negate information was mishandled .

 I am reminded that Al Capone wasn't taken down for racketeering or murder , but by a pencil pusher  for income tax evasion , might we be seeing a repeat here? the perjury charge could still come , matter of public record, even if the investigation said non prosecutorial , perjury, still is able to be prosecuted.

If I am wrong , others who dealt with classifieds can and I am sure will correct me.

AMac all information both military and government are "born" so to say or created with a minimal classification until they go through the classification process and assigned whatever classification they end up with, they start out as either sensitive or confidential from the get go and get up or downgraded during the process.

Mark, I will concede the following …

The "born classified" category includes “foreign government information,” or “any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts,” which rules say must be “presumed” classified.

I will concede the possibility of a technicality between "born" and "presumed" and the possibility that any/all of the e-mails in question may have been retroactively reclassified by virtue of their not meeting the aforementioned standards when born (generically speaking).

I will defer to any definitive, properly documented information to the contrary.

And just to be clear, I request that any in this discussion who are asserting that there is no such document as a RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT … go on the record and post that assertion with your name/avatar herein.

www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/
Copyright (c) 2015 University of Pennsylvania Law Review
University of Pennsylvania Law Review

ARTICLE: DO YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT'S SECRETS? RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE POWER TO MAKE SECRETS OUT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD

March, 2015

Tulane Law Review

163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1037

Author

Excerpt

Further …

In a rare maneuver, Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered that information about the Edmonds case be retroactively classified, even basic facts that have been posted on websites and discussed openly in meetings with members of Congress for two years. The Department of Justice also invoked the seldom-used ''state secrets" privilege to silence Edmonds in court. She has been blocked from testifying in a lawsuit brought by victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and was allowed to speak to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks only behind closed doors.

archive.boston

I don't doubt that those who don't agree with me have heard, read, believe that government documents can be changed from classified to unclassified to public and subsequently, retroactively classified/reclassified.

I have offered documentation and precedent … you can certainly disagree with me … but to disagree with reality is something different.

Mac , I don't think anyone is disputing that material is retroactively classified. I believe that happened a couple thousand times to Clinton's emails.

I don't think most sensible people hold those against her. Often, the retroactive classifying appears to be for some public relations purpose .

Clinton was not investigated because of "retroactive classification." It has zero to do with this discussion. comey  made clear that the material in question was undoubtedly classified at the time she sent and recieved it. 

You are barking up the wrong tree. 

Clinton was not investigated because of "retroactive classification." It has zero to do with this discussion. comey  made clear that the material in question was undoubtedly classified at the time she sent and recieved it. 

If you watched the hearing, you would have seen that, at the very end, that was disputed and Comey did not argue the point.

I suggest if video is available, you watch it.

Amac, that's what's called a red herring to get people sidetracked from the actual issues at play. Did you see who was leading that line of discussion?  No one disputes that retroactive classification exists. No one. 

She had over 100 emails on her unprotected server that were classified at the time they were sent and received. Comey couldn't have been more clear about that. It's not a subject for debate.  Don't let disingenuous democratic congressmen mislead you by conflating other emails that were subsequently classified with the hundred plus emails that were undisputededly classified  at the time she sent and received them. You are confusing two separate groups of emails. 

No one disputes that retroactive classification exists. No one. 

Sean,

Several members have, in this thread, in various ways, have disputed it.

If in fact … AND I AM NOT SAYING I KNOW IT FOR A FACT … but if the e-mails in question were retroactively reclassified and thus were not classified in the timeframe under investigation, we're talking "ex-post facto".

Beyond that, "gross negligence" is not synonymous with either general or specific "intent". 

Clinton should have known better, Bill Clinton should not have met with the AG and a Republican/Democrat entity should not be involved in a so-called "investigation" when the subject involves a POTUS candidate.

A TOTAL FUCK UP all the way around.

If you notice, throughout the thread, my comments address laws, protocol and, not just "intent" as it applies to attendant laws in this matter, BUT THE INTENT OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS WELL IN THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING.

Partisan bullshit … BOTH PARTIES … are a cancer on this country … and in discussions on NT as well.

ut if the e-mails in question were retroactively reclassified and thus were not classified in the timeframe under investigation,

The 100 plus relevant highly classified emails she had on her server were not retroactively classified. That's as much a fact as 2+2=4. It's not a debatable issue. The FBI couldn't have been more clear on that.

All that amounts to is a pathetic attempt to distract from the undeniable facts that Clinton was proven to have lied repeatedly about every aspect of this server issue to the press and Congress. It's an attempt to distract from the Director of the FBI's testimony  that she broke the law as written and that he saved her from prosecution by changing the intent requirement set forth in the criminal code.

This is the simple truth of what's transpired. She's a proven liar who was saved from prosecution by a favorable rewriting of the statute by the DOJ. 

Everything else is either false or an attempt to obfuscate.  

Intent is not required to be charged with neglect.  Think Negligent Homicide.  The statute she violated, as confirmed by Comey TWICE now, deals with neglect.  She was Negligent in handling classified material.  Period.  She should have been charged.  But she wasn't.

And based on Comey's testimony today, she should be charged with lying to Congress for the lies she told in her testimony.

But she won't.  And this is the point of the article.  Because there are two standards in America now.  Those for you and me, and those for the elite.

Someone made a comment earlier about indicting someone who is running for President, and the bar that needs to be overcome to get an indictment.  Why does that bar have to be different for a presidential candidate?

Intent is not required to be charged with neglect.  Think Negligent Homicide.  

The charges against Clinton are not criminal (whether or not one believes it should be); in this case, intent is a part of a standard.

And based on Comey's testimony today, she should be charged with lying to Congress for the lies she told in her testimony.

Then let's determine why Congress has not attempted to recommend prosecution fro perjury?

Because they know she is above the law and I would think many would worry about repercussions.

It shouldn't be bruce , and I made no secret I wont be voting for Hillary , my reason ( yes there is only one reason) I cant stand the waffletwatted bitch,translate to that is I don't like her as a person, that's as good a reason not to vote for her as any, anything else that has come out only strengthens , the dislike of her and her undeniable unqualifications to lead this nation.

Thankfully there are 3 other choices ( if they make the Wyo ballot, cant do write in here , they don't count) so I have to wait and see who makes my states ballot before I make any choice of who TO vote for. eliminating them is the easy part.

It doesn't matter if they were classified or not.  She was using an unauthorized private server.  Does she have ESP or something so she would know as she was receiving these emails whether they were classified as they were being downloaded onto her illegal private server?

Did her attorneys who help her scrub her computer hard drive have security clearances?

She originally said she wasn't going to turn it in.  Did she only have one hard drive or storage during the whole time?

Did she turn in everything without tampering with it or scrubbing it before she turned it in?

Did she turn all and everything over to the government when she left office as she was required to do or did they have to request it.

I remember Obama's DOJ raiding Gibson and taking wood they were using to build their guitars because they were the only American guitar company in the USA who were not unionized while the other companies such as Martin who were unionized used the same wood from the same place and were left alone.

The fix was in long before Comey made his speech.  Everyone knew it but us.  Hillary knew it as well.

They didn't get thousands of emails since they were scrubbed.