FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 9 months ago to Government
"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."
"It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. 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."
"It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. 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."
You appear to expect ethical action from the head of an agency that has skated without punishment from burning innocent people to death and murdering an innocent mother who was nursing her baby, even getting promotion for such acts.
To expect ethical behavior from the FBI director or any other statist looter is just not reasonable.
These statists are past the point of hiding their actions. They believe they can get away with anything so they will keep doing it with impunity until we stand up and stop them.
Looking at the last year a lot has been accomplished and there is a full scale counter revolution in progress against socialism and for regaining a Consitutional Republic.
Simple as that.
Can't count on Republicans obviously since they joined the left at the top level that leaves Johnson of None of the above by not voting for either one and raising that percentage of 46% who say we're not playing in yiour rigged game anymore. Higher it goes and the more levels it reaches the more we win and they lose. Took Ten years to win the first revolution and 12 or so to take the follow on in sequence step fo developing the Declaration into the Constitution.
Keep up the good work. I and two V's meaning a and o instead of u and e. Ballots not bullets but only if they have meaning. Otherwise No ballots means Consent Withdrawn.
"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."
The return of States Rights is long overdue.
Nevertheless, I feel all the more disgusted over the validation of the expectation.
The USA has been slimed yet again by its Animal Farm more than equal ruler elites who presume to be the betters of We The People.
"When the Law no longer Protects you from the Corrupt, but Protects the Corrupt from you - you know your nation is doomed"
Truth.
The only disagreement I have with you is the word "we." While the FBI and the rest of the justice system are supposed to represent "we" the people, they no longer do. They represent instead, "we" the elite. The rule of law no longer corresponds to the Washingtonians. Especially the Clintons who make the Sopranos look like the family next door.
The FBI rewriting law shouldn't surprise anyone.
(Taking out my conspiracy card...)
I think the first two words out of Slick Willie's mouth when he met Lynch on the airplane were "Vince Foster".
(..Putting card away.)
The real true believers are the hillary people. THEY wouldnt care what she did apparently. there is no stopping her. I thought Trump could, but there is just too much negativity against him to win
Then there is the Fourth Branch - the Bureaucracy which has it's own enforcement, law making, and law enforcing, it's own courts and it's own police and embodies what one Hillsdale Professor described in a lecture. When you combine all three powers together without checks and balances and oversight you have the secular definition of GOD.
Don't forget Jesus Corney in your prayers
Part of the point is to expose that it's not just the Dems that are corrupt statists and it's not just the GOP. None of them are representing the people; none of them deserve a vote.
Just because a corrupt Democrat administration controlled FBI ignores the law and recommends no prosecution of a well known criminal who is running for president does not mean that issue is closed. I think that this even more obvious corruption can cause a disruption to Hillary's planned coronation if it gets enough attention in a short enough time. Maybe that is worth the effort.
You may just see it as a distraction from the issues, but unethical and even criminal behavior is unacceptable in a president. These criminals keep pushing the envelope. Eventually enough people will be convinced that the Dems and GOP have betrayed their trust and they are criminals that can't be reformed.
What to do? Well if your out for revenge there is Trump but we don't really know what's he's going to do except he's a left wing liberal with no plan and no clue.
hmmm
I guess it's down to Johnson until the Bimbo Btigades are released, Trump as the unknown evil vs the known evil, and None Of The Above. That's when you cash in leave a rigged game behind and walk away. I'm registered probably for the last time but I'm also not voting in the Presdiential Election as I object to my vote being given to one of the others without my permission. The polite way of saying stolen and tampered with before delivering it elsewhere. .
However, intent is irrelevent in this crime.
If Hillary had also had intent, she would be guilty of T R E A S O N instead of gross negligence. She is likely guilty of gross negligence and should be tried and, when found guilty, she should be imprisoned therfore.
But the reckless "non-intentional" violations would be enough by themselves to prosecute her. Comey didn't say her lack of intent was the justification for not recommending prosecution -- after laying out more than enough evidence against her he said that the justification for not prosecuting is that no "reasonable prosecutor" would, which begs the question.
Following the law and having a trial would take time and have a negative effect on the campaign of the Democratic Party candidate. In that event the only way out for the Clinton looter is having the judge publicly either (1) find the perp not guilty with legal slight of hand, or (2) if there is a jury, instruct them to ignore the facts of the case and the law and find the perp not guilty (and threaten them with contempt if they do not.) The FBI director suggests that it would be less embarrasing and more practical to ignore the rule of law and just let the guilty bitch walk.
Under the Obama administration, seven Espionage Act prosecutions have been related not to traditional espionage but to either withholding information or communicating with members of the media. Out of a total eleven prosecutions under the Espionage Act against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media, seven have occurred since Obama took office.[89] "Leaks related to national security can put people at risk," the President said at a news conference in 2013. "They can put men and women in uniform that I've sent into the battlefield at risk. I don't think the American people would expect me, as commander in chief, not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed."[90]
Jeffrey Alexander Sterling, a former CIA agent was indicted under the Act in January 2011 for alleged unauthorized disclosure of national defense information to James Risen, a New York Times reporter, in 2003 regarding his book State of War. The indictment described his motive as revenge for the CIA's refusal to allow him to publish his memoirs and its refusal to settle his racial discrimination lawsuit against the Agency. Others have described him as telling Risen about a backfired CIA plot against Iran in the 1990s.[91]
In April 2010, Thomas Andrews Drake, an official with the National Security Agency (NSA), was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) for alleged willful retention of national defense information. The case arose from investigations into his communications with Siobhan Gorman of the Baltimore Sun and Diane Roark of the House Intelligence Committee as part of his attempt to blow the whistle on several issues including the NSA's Trailblazer project.[92][93][94][95][96] Considering the prosecution of Drake, investigative journalist Jane Mayer wrote that "Because reporters often retain unauthorized defense documents, Drake's conviction would establish a legal precedent making it possible to prosecute journalists as spies."[97]
n May 2010, Shamai K. Leibowitz, a translator for the FBI, admitted sharing information with a blogger and pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 798(a)(3) to one count of disclosure of classified information. As part of a plea bargain, he was sentenced to 20 months in prison.[99][100]
In August 2010, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a contractor for the State Department and a specialist in nuclear proliferation, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) for alleged disclosure in June 2009 of national defense information to reporter James Rosen of Fox News, related to North Korea's plans to test a nuclear weapon.[101][102]
In 2010, Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, the United States Army Private First Class accused of the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history, was charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which incorporates parts of the Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). At the time, critics worried that the broad language of the Act could make news organizations, and anyone who reported, printed or disseminated information from WikiLeaks, subject to prosecution, although former prosecutors pushed back, citing Supreme Court precedent expanding First Amendment protections.[103] On July 30, 2013, following a judge-only trial by court-martial lasting eight weeks, Army judge Colonel Denise Lind convicted Manning on six counts of violating the Espionage Act, among other infractions.[98]
In January 2012, John Kiriakou, former CIA officer and later Democratic staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Act with leaking information to journalists about the identity of undercover agents, including one who was allegedly involved in waterboarding interrogations of al-Qaeda logistics chief Abu Zubaydah.[104][105] Kiriakou is alleged to have also disclosed an investigative technique used to capture Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002.[106]
In June 2013, Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act after releasing documents exposing the NSA's PRISM Surveillance Program. Specifically, he was charged with "unauthorized communication of national defense information" and "willful communication of classified intelligence with an unauthorized person".[107]
Yet this bimbo gets off? Comey needs to be fired, now.
Or they could bring in Hap Edwards and get to the truth.
""I could find out what he knows, Mr. President," Hap Edwards said without a trace of inflection. The President's jaw dropped and his head snapped around to face the former head of the CIA's Center For Counter-Terrorism.
"Are you implying that I should authorize the torture of a Director of the FBI?" Hap Edwards stared at the President without saying a word. The President squinted and a horrible parody of a smile appeared on his face. "Aren't you afraid his heart would give out, Mr. Edwards?" he said in the most caustic tone he could muster.
"I'd keep it going long enough," Edwards said softly."