If Comey was in favor of Hillary losing, then why did the IG think it was kosher for Clinton to meet with lynch, and then magically language changed, like from criminal investigation, to matter, or negligence to carelessness. The Ig literally said there was nothing wrong with lynch and clinton meeting on the tarmac. LOL so meeting the head of the DOJ while your spouse is under investigation is ok? Well Horowitz believes it to be.
Was Horowitz appointed by Obama?
The IG report addresses this:
"The Department also determined that prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2071
was not viable. Section 2071 prohibits the concealment, removal, or destruction of
a record filed in a public office. The prosecutors concluded that, as to emails on the
Clinton servers that were sent to or from government email accounts, because they
also existed on government systems there was no evidence that Clinton or anyone
else took any actions to conceal, remove, or destroy them from the government
systems on which they resided. As to the work-related emails that were not sent to
or from any government system, the prosecutors concluded that such emails were
never âfiled within a public office.â The prosecutors also noted that every
prosecution under Section 2071 involved the removal or destruction of documents
that had already been filed or deposited in a public office. Additionally, the
prosecutors found no evidence that the laptop âcullingâ process involved the
intentional destruction of government records in an effort to conceal them in
violation of Section 2071. We did not identify any evidence to suggest that these
determinations were based on bias or other improper considerations.
The statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was
18 U.S.C. § 793(f)(1), which criminalizes the removal, delivery, loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction of national defense information through âgross
negligence.â Due in part to Comeyâs July 5 statement criticizing Clinton for being
âextremely careless,â which many observers equated with being âgrossly
negligent,â this provision became the focus of much of the questioning of the
declination decision. As detailed above, the prosecutors identified statements in
the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1) that they found indicated that the state
of mind required for a violation of that section is âso gross as to almost suggest
deliberate intention,â criminally reckless, or âsomething that falls just short of being
willful.â In addition, based on a review of constitutional vagueness challenges of
Sections 793(d) and (e), the Midyear prosecutors stated that âthe government
would very likely face a colorable constitutional challenge to the statute if it
prosecuted an individual for gross negligence who was both unaware he had
removed classified information at the time of the removal and never became aware
he had done so.â Based on all of these circumstances, and a review of the small
number of prior civilian and military cases under Section 793(f), the prosecutors
interpreted the âgross negligenceâ provision of Section 793(f)(1) to require proof
that an individual acted with knowledge that the information in question was
classified. The investigators and prosecutors told us that proof of such knowledge
was lacking.
We found that the prosecutorsâ interpretation of the requirements of Section
793(f)(1) was consistent with prior Department declination decisions that the
prosecutors considered and that we reviewed.
LOL " lack of Intentional Destruction Process"? You have to be kidding me right lol? So now the IG is in the business of deciding criminality based upon intentions instead of actions.
How long has Trump been President again?
thanks for deflecting.
Yes. Intent matters in criminal prosecutions.
Intent is a huge aspect of the law.
And the law in question is entirely based upon intent, historically. Thatâs the precedent. No reasonable prosecutor.
Which is, again, what we told you when Comey initially declined to prosecute.
I see what youâre saying. Fair questions that we definitely need answers for as well.
The IT company was told to destroy the personal emails months before the subpoena was issued. It was the IT employee who realized in March that he didnât delete the emails that he was requested to do months prior. The IT employee then took it upon himself to do so. He was interviewed. There was no evidence that he was told by Clinton post-subpoena to delete emails. Why would they request that? They were under the assumption those emails were deleted months before.
Yes.
Intent is exactly how our legal system works.
There are two aspects of every crime - the actus reus, and the mens rea - loosely translated to âbad actâ and âculpable mental stateâ.
Both are required for a crime to have happened. An act, and an intention.
2 Likes
Its easy! You receive a subpoena, documents are then cant be turned over to congress because they are destroyed! LOL this is all bogus. Im done with News, our country is too far gone, we are now an Oligarch. You can have witch hunts into one party and raid there attorneys, but protect the other party from prosecution. Its amazing.
I donât think that Comey was in favor of Clinton losing.
He did â â â â up royally by informing that the investigation about her emails was reopened just days before the election.
The fact that the public knew that there was Federal investigation on one candidate and not the other ⌠when they were both being investigated was his big mistake.
Never attribute to conspiracy what can be easily explained as incompetence.
Its easy to know Clintons intent! She got a subpoena, and then evidence is miraculously missing, just like white water. Nothing has changed.
I agree whole heartedly. Trump himself didnt even know he was under investigation, and thats a new level of wrong.
Both the FBI in their initial investigation, and the IG disagree with you.
The request to delete her personal emails was sent months before the subpoena. And why did you run away from the April budget thread?
LOL The FBI is part of the problem, and the IG, well he is an Obama sycophant. Lets form a special counsel with a bunch of republican donors like mueller did with his merry team of DNC donors and start a special counsel.
Isnât Sessions the boss of DOJ?
He didnât recuse himself from any Clinton probe.
So, Iâm supposed to take your word for it (someone who doesnât understand what a law degree is, let alone has one)?
