Quote: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. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

link to Disgrace of America's Laws

Quote:Hillary Clinton Is Above The Law

What could possibly be more grossly negligent than sending unsecured emails in places where hostile actors can read them?
JULY 5, 2016 By David Harsanyi
No reasonable person could possibly square what FBI Director James Comey said about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State with his final recommendation.

On Tuesday, Comey spent 15 minutes meticulously detailing every illegality of Clinton—including her negligent behavior and obstruction of the investigation. And yet, at the end of it all, he offered the absurdly counterintuitive position that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges in such a case.

Well, everything the director said challenged that conclusion. At one point, for example, Comey explained that any “reasonable person should have known this was not an appropriate venue for classified emails.” Only minutes before that, Comey also said that “gross negligence” would suffice for prosecution. So is he accusing the presidential candidate of being too dumb to comprehend what a top secret document is or how an email account works?

Because any other explanation makes no sense.

According to the FBI, Clinton sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of them contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. Worse still, “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey explained.

There are few, if any, scenarios I can conceive of that are more grossly negligent when it comes to classified documents than sending them through an unsecured email account in a place where hostile actors can access them. Perhaps Comey could offer the nation an example of what it takes to be prosecuted. What if Hillary left a folder marked “top secret” in front of the Chinese embassy in Russia? Would that do it? I doubt it.

Here’s another question that worth asking: Do presidential candidates have to admit they intended to commit a crime for the FBI to recommend the Justice Department prosecute? In the case of Clinton, it seems so. The FBI doesn’t believe there was intentional misconduct on the part of Clinton. Why did she ignore FIOA requests and fight Congress every step of the way? Why did Hillary lie or mislead law enforcement and the public if it was just an innocent mistake?

On March 1 of this year, Clinton alleged that she “never sent any classified material — nor received any — marked classified.” This was a lie. Hillary asserted that before becoming secretary she merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This was also lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices”—not to mention servers. Any reasonable person could ascertain she was attempting to evade the public.  She archived nothing and hid everything until she was discovered. The FBI unearthed several thousand more work-related emails by finding traces of these in decommissioned servers. Other emails were found in accounts of high-ranking officials at other agencies who also, according to Comey, should have known better. It was widely known that she used a private, unsecure email. How is that not grossly negligent?

Granted, I’m not a lawyer, but 18 U.S. Code 1924 — “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material” — clearly states that anyone who “knowingly removes” materials “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Perhaps a prosecution would have been tough, but everything Comey laid out in his press conference — until the very end — only substantiated that Hillary had nonchalantly mishandled classified information.

The case also speaks to trust of government. Comey claimed that he put on this unusual press conference because a high-impact case deserves extraordinary transparency. But transparency doesn’t exempt him from criticism or his investigation from political pressure. Comey basically admits as much near the end of his press conference.

Quote:To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Many people have been prosecuted for far less, including John Deutch, Sandy Berger, David Petraeus, and lesser-known names.  Comey’s own words tell us Hillary should have met a similar fate. Hillary will campaign with Barack Obama today, creating the perception that the fix was in. Yesterday, a week after her husband had a private meeting with the Attorney General, some Democrats signaled through a New York Times story that Hillary would probably rehire Loretta Lynch. The stench of Clinton corruption is back. She is above the law. And there is no one to stop her.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. [i]Follow him on Twitter.[/i]
Clinton Email scandal Clinton Emails FBI Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton's emails James Comey U.S. Justice Department
Copyright © 2016 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

Quote:(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b)
For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
©
In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)©(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)

Quote:2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $1,000,”.

 
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

(07-05-2016, 11:14 PM)Minstrel Wrote: Would the same standard apply to those that do not pay an income tax?

As long as they have no intent to harm the USA ... Let 'em Slide, Baby!!!!

This is GREAT news.

Or, is it?

Quote:U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is above the law, as St. Helena, California residents learned last month.
Local Paul Smith wrote in to the St. Helena Starin June to describe Pelosi’s recent shoe shopping excursion at a fancy boutique, prompting a response from police chief Bill Imboden about the former House Speaker’s special status.
“Last Saturday afternoon (June 4) I’m standing on the west side of Main Street directly across from the Hunt Avenue intersection chatting with friends. Of course, traffic was heavy in both directions,” Smith wrote.
“A large perfectly polished and gleaming black SUV is attempting a left turn from Hunt onto southbound Main (not easy). Suddenly blue/red lights are flashing from the windshield area of the SUV (like you would see in an official fire/police vehicle),” he continued. “I said to my friends, I’ve never seen that before on a ‘regular’ vehicle and I’d think that’s illegal and dangerous. They agreed.”
That’s when the large black SUV jolted across two lanes of traffic, lights flashing, to park in front of a fire hydrant at the high end shoe boutique Footcandy.
“A St. Helena police car happens to be going northbound and pulls into the center lane and the officer starts shaking his arm and hollering at the driver of the SUV. While this goes on a man exits the SUV assisting a woman from the vehicle. She dashes off to Footcandy while he waits by the SUV in the red zone,” Smith explained.

The police officer then drove off without confronting the driver, he wrote.
“My friends and I are puzzled, say goodbye and I walk south on Main. As I approach Footcandy, Nancy Pelosi comes out with her shopping bags and the man assists her into the awaiting SUV. The SUV, with lights flashing, bursts back into southbound traffic,” Smith said.
“Wow! Privilege? Power? Whose SUV, taxpayers?” he questioned. “Say it ain’t so, Nancy.”
The Star contacted Imboden about the episode.
Imboden responded:
The St. Helena Police Department has received similar complaints in the past, and on occasion we come across a scenario like what is mentioned in the complaint. Unfortunately local law enforcement has no authority to prevent this type of activity. The U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Secret Service provide dignitary protection for certain high-ranking members of the Federal Government, and this protection comes with the discretion to violate some state and local laws (illegal U-turns, parking in a red zone) under the guise of providing the best possible protection to the dignitary. In the case of Congresswoman Pelosi, she receives her protection detail from the Capitol Police. As the Chief of Police in St. Helena I can assure you we don’t like or condone their behavior, but I can tell you from personal experience that while they sympathize with the position they put us in, they will not alter their tactics to appease us.
Anyone who wishes to lodge a complaint about Congresswoman Pelosi can email her at the following website: pelosi.house.gov.
You can also lodge a complaint with the protection agency at: U.S. Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility — OPR@uscp.gov.
“This didn’t look like any official business to me,” Smith told the San Francisco Chronicle, which confirmed the high security shopping trip with Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.
Hammill, of course, insisted that Pelosi’s entourage “always complies with appropriate laws and regulations.”
Twitchy pointed out Tuesday that Pelosi’s special treatment is another example of “the double standard that benefits Democrat politicians to whom laws simply don’t apply” that’s similar to the recent decision by the FBI not to recommend criminal charges against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton over her use of a private unsecured email server for official government business.

Quote:Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton

Quote:Secrecy is a virtual religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive manner – at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been widely noted, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined. Secrecy in DC is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said back in 2000, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”

People who leak to media outlets for the selfless purpose of informing the public – Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Drake, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden – face decades in prison. Those who leak for more ignoble and self-serving ends – such as enabling hagiography (Leon Panetta, David Petreaus) or ingratiating oneself to one’s mistress (Petraeus) – face career destruction, though they are usually spared if they are sufficiently Important-in-DC. For low-level, powerless Nobodies-in-DC, even the mere mishandling of classified information – without any intent to leak but merely to, say, work from home – has resulted in criminal prosecution, career destruction and the permanent loss of security clearance.

Quote:This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today – just in time to save Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. FBI Director James Comey, an Obama appointee who served in the Bush DOJ, held a press conference earlier this afternoon in which he condemned Clinton on the ground that she and her colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” including Top Secret material.

Quote:Comey also detailed that her key public statements defending her conduct –i.e., she never sent classified information over her personal email account and that she had turned over all “work-related” emails to the State Department – were utterly false; insisted “that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation”; and argued that she endangered national security because of the possibility “that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” Comey also noted that others who have done what Clinton did “are often subject to security or administrative sanctions” – such as demotion, career harm, or loss of security clearance.

Quote:Despite all of these highly incriminating findings, Comey explained, the FBI is recommending to the Justice Department that Clinton not be charged with any crime. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” To justify this claim, Comey cited “the context of a person’s actions” and her “intent.” In other words, there is evidence that she did exactly what the criminal law prohibits, but it was more negligent and careless than malicious and deliberate.

Quote:"We have a rigged system, folks," Trump told backers at a rally in Raleigh, N.C., adding that the e-scandal reflected her "horrible" judgment.

Quote:Trump also hit the "rigged system" in a tweet sent less than an hour after the announcement by FBI Director James Comey, saying that "General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.

Quote:In the Raleigh speech that attacked Obama as well as former president Bill Clinton, Trump vowed to take the country back "from these thieves and crooks."

Quote:While Comey said there was not enough evidence to prove that Hillary Clinton intentionally transferred classified information, warranting prosecution, the FBI director said the former secretary of State and her aides "were extremely careless" in their handling of sensitive material.

Picking up that theme, Trump also tweeted: "FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem"

Quote:He added: "The final jury will be the American people, and they will issue the verdict on her corruption, incompetence, and bad judgment on November 8th."

Quote:Trump also attacked Obama in Raleigh, saying at one point that the president plays golf while "our country is going to hell."

Quote:The State Department is re-opening an internal investigation into whether Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top aides mishandled classified information, Fox News confirmed late Thursday.

The investigation, which was first reported by the Associated Press, focuses on how classified emails to and from Clinton's private server were categorized at the time they were sent.

The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton's private server to be "top secret." The investigation was halted after the FBI began investigating Clinton's so-called "homebrew" email setup last April. On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said there would be no indictments resulting from the FBI probe.

"Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. "Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations."

Kirby set no deadline for the investigation's completion.

Quote:Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is most likely examining confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton's former policy chief, could be national security adviser.