House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah
Several legal experts on Wednesday told WND that FBI chief James Comey’s decision that he would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton over her email scandal because there was no “intent,” even though that’s not included in the law, meant there would be more investigations into her behavior and handling of national security secrets.
On Thursday, they began, with confirmation from Congress that Comey will be testifying before a committee reviewing his decision, and how he reached his conclusion.
The concern is over his recommendation that Clinton face no charges over her decision to put national security secrets on a private home email system that lacked security and probably was hacked by the nation’s enemies.
Comey confirmed publicly that Clinton was extremely careless in her actions, and the law requires evidence of “gross negligence.”
Famed musical artist Charlie Daniels perhaps was speaking for the average American when he posted a statement defining the issue.
“Comey has recommended that while Hillary and her staff were ‘extremely careless’ with her emails, no charges should be filed. The law states that ‘gross negligence’ with regards to national security documents is grounds for fines and up to ten years in prison. How is ‘extremely careless’ not the same as ‘gross negligence?’”
The experts, former U.S. Attorney Joseph di Genova and Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, said they believe Clinton will not be exonerated in the court of public opinion and that the perception that she received politically motivated preferential treatment from a Democratic administration will dog her for the remainder of the presidential campaign.
On Thursday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Comey will testify Thursday morning before the committee.
He said in a statement, “The FBI’s recommendation is surprising and confusing. The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI’s investigation. I thank Director Comey for accepting the invitation to publicly answer these important questions.”
Fox News pointed out that Comey took no questions after his statement on Wednesday.
“In saying he would not press the Justice Department to pursue an indictment against the likely Democrat nominee for president, Comey nonetheless laid out a strong case that she had violated multiple statutes regulating government employees’ safeguarding of sensitive emails,” the report said.
Thomas DuPree, former deputy assistant attorney general, said Comey’s “conclusions … didn’t quite square with the facts.”
He said the conclusion was aggravated by President Obama’s intervention earlier in the investigation with his statements that there was really nothing wrong there, and ex-President Bill Clinton’s clandestine meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch just last week.
What do YOU think? Sound off on FBI not pursuing charges against Hillary
Fitton, noting Judicial Watch helped break open the Clinton email scandal, said his organization will “independently continue its groundbreaking litigation and investigation.”
Fitton said Comey’s statement was incongruous: The FBI director initially made the case that Clinton was grossly negligent in the handling of her private email system, but then he insisted no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, because Clinton did not intend to harm the United States.
DiGenova told WND Comey’s statement was “bizarre.”
“First, Comey sets up the facts for prosecution under gross negligence statutes, then he argues there was no intent. That’s nonsense.”
Fox News also reported Lynch was scheduled to appear before an oversight committee next week, and now also is expected to be questioned about the email scandal.
Then he said they were “extremely careless.”
However, experts have pointed out that intent is not a required part of the law, only “gross negligence.”
And Comey himself confirmed 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. That directly contradicted Clinton’s claim that nothing was marked classified when she sent or received it.
His statement:
if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_aC0jSuVw_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/29wGYjr”}
);
WND reported in February on that exact intent.
A 2011 email in which Hillary Clinton instructed an aide to remove the security headers on classified information and forward it to her unsecure smartphone set a precedent for the handling of similar information over the next year-and-a-half until she left office, a retired general well versed in the handling of classified information told WND.
“It certainly shows a trend or a way for them to do their own business [that] they felt would be under the radar,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, referring to five or six close Clinton assistants and advisers.
And, in fact, the Daily Caller documented how another case with similar circumstances resulted in probation for the offender.
The report cited the case of Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura, who had access to “classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers.”
At the time, the FBI reported, “Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment.”
Said the Caller, “Like Clinton, Nishimura admitted to destroying ‘a large quantity of classified materials.’ Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions ‘did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.’”
He got two years probation, a $7,500 fine, forfeiture of his personal media and an order to surrender security clearances and never again seek them.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/congress-summons-fbi-chief-to-explain-email-decision/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/congress-summons-fbi-chief-to-explain-email-decision/
No comments:
Post a Comment