Comey could have established a precedent. He chose not to.

By 12 Comments 1,087 views

comey

 

James Comey did a great job unmasking Hillary Clinton’s lies in great detail.

1.) “I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.”

2.) “I have provided all my work-related emails.”

3.) Clinton campaign: Lawyers read through all emails before deleting the rest.

4.) “I opted for convenience to use my personal email account.”

5.) “No evidence” that server was hacked.

And of course, contrary to her assertions, she used multiple devices.

The focus has to remain on this portion of Comey’s statements:

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent….

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information….

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation…

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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges….”

Legally, the terms “extremely careless” and “gross negligence” are interchangeable.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey opened and closed his statement to the press Tuesday with expressions of gratitude and pride to be associated with the bureau. His description of FBI agents’ work on the Hillary Clinton email investigation showed why he feels that way. Whether the rest of his statement—explaining why he wasn’t recommending prosecution of Mrs. Clinton—should make the feeling mutual is an open question.
… It is a felony for anyone entrusted with lawful possession of information relating to national defense to permit it, through “gross negligence,” to be removed from its proper place of custody and disclosed. “Gross negligence” rather than purposeful conduct is enough.
Yet Mr. Comey appears to have based his recommendation not to prosecute on the absence of “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information” ….
[But] as an example of the kind of information at stake, he described seven email chains classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level. These were the emails that the government had said earlier are so sensitive that they will never be disclosed publicly. Mr. Comey went further, citing “evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” To be “extremely careless” in the handling of information that sensitive is synonymous with being grossly negligent.

ON Fox News, even Doug Shoen agreed that Comey has to explain it. “Gross negligence” in handling classified information does not require proof of intent.

And what of the finding that the investigation did not disclose “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information”? Even the felony statute requires no such evidence, and no such intent.

Comey employed “intent” as the escape hatch and then, despite admitting there was evidence of violations of the law, cited precedent:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

Firstly, if they “should have known” then it becomes willful. Second, ignorance is not supposed to be a legal defense. It is now. Finally, there was sufficient evidence to put this before a grand jury. There was an opportunity to set a precedent.

Legal precedent: In common law legal systems, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Thing is, precedents come from something that hasn’t been previously adjudicated. Comey could have established one. He chose not to.

We can, however, thank him for proving beyond any doubt what a miserable liar is Hillary Clinton.

 

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

12 Responses to “Comey could have established a precedent. He chose not to.”

  1. 1

    Bill

    Comey just didn’t want to be the guy that changed an election campaign. However, what his priority should have been was to determine if a criminal was running for office.

    By the way, a criminal IS running for office and she’s a liar.

  2. 2

    Nanny G

    Comey did something that allowed American voters to punish Hillary rather than a criminal justice system.
    Recall how a couple of better-than-average lawyers made it possible for George Zimmerman to be found not guilty?
    How much better would Hillary’s law team been?
    But voters can punish Hillary in one of the few ways that might really reach her heardened heart: by not voting for her.
    Are there still Dems who have enough of a conscience to turn their backs on Hillary?
    If not, this election is going to be close.
    For all the extra voters Trump pulled in, the dems (in total) had slightly more votes as he did.
    Will Bernie’s supporters REALLY stay away from Hillary?
    If they do, Trump wins more decisively.

    Thing is, a close election goes to the cheaters, the dems.
    The more decisive an election is, the less likely dem shenanigans can steal it.

    Its something to think about.

  3. 4

    Bill

    @Nanny G:

    Recall how a couple of better-than-average lawyers made it possible for George Zimmerman to be found not guilty?

    The difference is, Zimmerman wasn’t guilty.

    Look at the liberals we argue with here… even though they have the full context of Comey’s remarks, they still only see “No Charges”.

    Now, compare that to your ru -of-the-mill consumer of network news and all they are getting is the same explanation… no charges. The same went with the Benghazi report… “No New Charges”. Forget that all the OLD charges were confirmed, they didn’t find that any more than 4 were left to die, so “no new charges”.

    Trump can drive this point home like no other could… or would. Hopefully, Gingrich will campaign as well. Better to go down swinging than be the nice guy that finishes last.

  4. 5

    James Felix

    Oh he established a precedent all right, just not a good one. He established once and for all that connected government insiders are above the law.

    What bugs me is people referring to this as a “cover up”. Nothing has been covered up. This is an open, blatant middle finger waved at the tax-paying rubes still laboring under the delusion that our Constitution was still operational.

  5. 7

    Greg

    Legally, the terms “extremely careless” and “gross negligence” are interchangeable.

    Actually, no, the legal terms are most definitely NOT interchangeable. Gross negligence goes far beyond carelessness or simple negligence, neither of which involves any indication of intent to cause harm or an awareness that harm will be caused by inattentiveness.

    Gross negligence: n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another’s property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

    careless: adj., adv. (1) negligent. (2) the opposite of careful. A careless act can result in liability for damages to others.

    Carelessness or simple negligence involve no intent to cause harm or awareness that one’s action will cause specific harm.

  6. 9

    DrJohn

    author

    @Greg:

    Actually, no, the legal terms are most definitely NOT interchangeable. Gross negligence goes far beyond carelessness or simple negligence, neither of which involves any indication of intent to cause harm or an awareness that harm will be caused by inattentiveness.

    Yes, they are, Greg, and even Doug Schoen agreed, along with Rudy Giuliani, Andy McCarthy and Mukasey.

  7. 10

    DrJohn

    author

    @Greg:

    Carelessness or simple negligence involve no intent to cause harm or awareness that one’s action will cause specific harm.

    Intent is not in the statute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *