2-19-2019 Ms. Anderson: “We all held a sense that--that it was a pretty stupid thing to do, that anybody who has held a security clearance, anybody who has worked in the government understands that you have--the cardinal rule that you have to do your work on a government system.
“So we all recognized from the outset that from a commonsense perspective from somebody who has worked--from the perspective of somebody who has worked in the government that it seemed like a pretty dumb thing to do.”
But Anderson also maintained--as did Page, Baker and the others--that Clinton shouldn’t have been charged under the “gross negligence” statute, as they (her actions) lacked evidence of intent.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-testimony-by-fbi-lawyer-trisha-anderson-reveals-extensive-role-in-trump-clinton-investigations_2806982.html
………………………………………………......................................................................................……
4-21-16 According to President Obama, Hillary Clinton deserves legal protections that more obviously innocent everyday Americans do not. During a Fox News Sunday interview on April 10, the president defended Clinton’s dangerous mishandling of classified information by assuring viewers that “she would never intentionally put America in any kind of Jeopardy.” This is not much comfort for the lives that might have been put in danger through her use of an unsecure home-brew email server.
The interesting part of that quote is his use of the word “intentionally.” The reality is that he has a perfectly valid point, and in fact a person’s intentions have been an integral part of our common law understanding of crime for centuries. In legal terms, this is known as “mens rea,” or guilty mind.
Intent serves the important role of making sure a person does not go to jail over an accident. This makes it one of 2 main elements of most crimes: 1) did the accused person commit the act and 2) did they mean to do it?
Then, depending on the level of intent that legislators decided was appropriate for the crime in question, prosecutors will then need to prove the standard set in the statute: such as whether the individual knew what they were doing was a crime, or if they merely intended to do harm. https://www.atr.org/according-obama-doj-should-consider-intent-only-hillary-clinton
…………………………………………………………………..........................................................
7-5-16 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….Yet FBI 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. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook/
………………………………………………………………………………………………..........
11-22-16 The relevant statute places a special burden on public officials to safeguard national secrets, making it a crime to remove national defense information from its “proper place of custody” even through mere “gross negligence.” There is no requirement of finding specific intent.
Yet in explaining why he believed that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek to indict Clinton, Comey didn’t refer back to this standard. Instead he made up his own – declaring that prior prosecutions included elements like “willful mishandling,” “indications of disloyalty” or “efforts to obstruct justice.” Yet these factors don’t define the crime, they merely exacerbate it. The crime itself depends on gross negligence, not these aggravating factors.
As a former military lawyer and veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I have enough experience to know that our soldiers are required to comply with the actual law – not an F.B.I.-created lesser standard. Careers have ended, and good men and women have faced prosecution for less severe misconduct. But they’re not presidential candidates, and they don’t enjoy the privilege of fabricated legal standards. Justice isn’t blind – it merely averts her eyes from Hillary Clinton. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/07/05/a-double-standard-for-clinton-or-the-right-standard-for-prosecutors/by-not-charging-clinton-comey-isnt-following-the-law
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...........
10-13-16 The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged….
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”…
“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post. Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”…“Basically, James Comey hijacked the DOJ’s role by saying ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,’” the Fox News source said. “The FBI does not decide who to prosecute and when, that is the sole province of a prosecutor -- that never happens. I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.” Napolitano agreed, saying the FBI investigation was hampered from the beginning because there was no grand jury and no search warrants or subpoenas issued.
“The FBI could not seize anything related to the investigation, only request things. As an example, in order to get the laptop,they had to agree to grant immunity,” Napolitano said….there were signs the investigation would go nowhere, the source told FoxNews.com. One was the fact that the FBI forced its agents and analysts involved in the case to sign non-disclosure agreements. “This is unheard of, because of the stifling nature it has on the investigative process,” the source said.
Another oddity was the five so-called immunity agreements granted to Clinton’s State Department aides and IT experts….As Fox News has reported, Combetta utilized the computer program “Bleachbit” to destroy Clinton’s records despite an order from Congress to preserve them, and Samuelson also destroyed Clinton’s emails. Pagliano established the system that illegally transferred classified and top secret information to Clinton’s private server. Mills disclosed classified information to the Clinton’s family foundation in the process, breaking federal laws.
None should have been granted immunity if no charges were being brought, the source said….“Mills and Samuelson receiving immunity with the agreement their laptops would be destroyed by the FBI afterwards is, in itself, illegal,” the source said. “We know those laptops contained classified information. That's also illegal, and they got a pass.”
Mills’ dual role as Clinton’s attorney and a witness in her own right should never have been tolerated either. “Mills was allowed to sit in on the interview of Clinton as her lawyer. That's absurd. Someone who is supposedly cooperating against the target of an investigation [being] permitted to sit by the target as counsel violates any semblance of ethical responsibility,” the source said….
Adding to the controversy, WikiLeaks released internal Clinton communication records this week that show the Department of Justice kept Clinton’s campaign and her staff informed about the progress of its investigation.
Leaked emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s gmail account show the Clinton campaign was contacted by the DOJ on May 19, 2015.
“DOJ folks inform me there is a status hearing in this case this morning, so we could have a window into the judge’s thinking about this proposed production schedule as quickly as today,” Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon wrote in relation to the email documentation the State Department would be required to turn over to the Justice Department. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider
…………………………………………………………………............................................................
So we see that Ms. Anderson, Page, Baker, Obama, Comey and Lynch all want a U.S. Federal Law to read a way that was never at all authorized by Congress, Executive or Judicial branches to read. Hence they have formed a cabal against America and her principles. Add to the list John Podesta, Mills, Fallon, Samuelson, Combetta and William Clinton via his private airplane off-the-record summer 2016 meeting with Lynch, plus a certain Hillary—13 in all.
So why, having won the election, did Trump then not favor a prosecution of Hillary? Why not now as well? What’s with this system? O yeah, the "leadership" system that assassinated the Kennedys, MLK, Lincoln, hmm, proceeded to cover them all up plus 9-11, 2008 bailout, and so forth. Ha! -r
………………………………………………………………................
No comments:
Post a Comment