Libtard Hack James Comey Celebrates Independence Day by Thumbing His Nose at The Declaration of Independence. by JEWELSTAITEFAN

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libtard Hack James Comey Celebrates Independence Day by Thumbing His Nose at The Declaration of Independence.

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, August 11, 2016 19:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1993
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, July 5, 2016 7:54 PM

Specifically, Article II.

He details Hilliary's Felony violations of U.S. 18 Section 793 F including subsection 1, with 110 counts just from the emails that she didn't destroy. More apply to the emails that she did destroy, and the destruction of evidence also garners charges.

We have a government which is out of control, without being answerable to The People, without answering to The People, or working for The People.

http://www.onenewspage.com/video/20160705/4918356/Comey-Email-Statemen
t-Contradicts-Clinton.htm

http://digg.com/2016/comey-clinton-email-statement

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/FBI-Director-Jam
es-Comey-Statement-385550951.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2016 7:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

He did also clearly detail in his statement that every statement Hilliary ever made about these emails was a lie. And that Hilliary never once made a statement about her emails that was the truth.

The statement transcript:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-dire
ctor-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Of the emails Hilliary did not delete, 110 emails in 52 email chains were classified at the time they were sent or received. Confidential: 8, Secret: 36, Top Secret: 8.

Of the emails Hilliary deleted after being directed to NOT DELETE them and turn them over, 3 more were classified at the time they were sent or received - 2 Confidential and 2 Secret.

Seven email chains included Top Secret/Special Access Program classification.

And Section F, subsection 1:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

and
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

And hey!
Her emails:

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wikileaks-publishes-30000-hillary-cl
inton-emails/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:42 PM

REAVERFAN

He's one of yours. The opposite of a liberal, you reichwing fascist nut job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 7, 2016 9:56 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

And at the hearing, FBI Director James Comey stressed that his biggest concern was what federal employees might infer from the case. He wants to make sure they understand that mishandling of classified information carries consequences, from reprimand to dismissal.

In the case of Clinton, however, the FBI simply could not prove criminal intent – a unanimous conclusion among the investigative team, he pointed out. “Should have known, must have known, had to know, does not get you there,” Comey said.

Comey was appointed to the Justice Department under Republican president George W. Bush, and to a 10-year term as head of the FBI under President Obama. Comey has been a Republican for many years, but said at Thursday's hearing that he is no longer registered with any party. If Clinton were elected, he would continue to serve under her.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 8, 2016 11:15 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

This is an interesting read.

Looking at section F (complete context next post), it looks like Hillary could easily have been prosecuted, as others have been.

"(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, ..." intent not required

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437595/military-prosecutions-show
-gross-negligence-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out

In questioning by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), Director Comey seemed to concede that the statute criminalizing the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence may well be constitutional. That cuts against his testimony throughout the hearing, during which he argued that prosecuting a serious offense without requiring proof of an intent to cause harm would violate American tradition and, quite possibly, the Constitution. The director maintains, however, that using the statute to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would be inappropriate even if the statute is valid. This, he reasons, is because the statute has only been used once since its enactment in 1917. The idea is that using it against her would amount to unlawful selective prosecution. I am puzzled by this argument for several reasons, but I will limit this post to just one of them: The fact that the statute has been used repeatedly in military prosecutions – and that at least one military court decision undermines arguments Director Comey has made about the state-of-mind proof required. The military prosecutions for gross negligence in the mishandling of classified information were discussed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a Wall Street Journal column following Director Comey’s press conference on Tuesday. While it is certainly true that the FBI does not handle such investigations, the military courts are part of the United States justice system. Military cases litigate many of the same statutes and precedents (especially, Supreme Court precedents) that are applicable in the civilian justice system. One relevant military case, United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home. While he was charged under Section 793, it was not under subsection (f) – the subsection of the statute most relevant to Mrs. Clinton, involving the grossly negligent mishandling of classified information – but under subsection (e), which criminalizes willful mishandling of classified information. Nevertheless, the case is highly relevant to our consideration of Director Comey’s recommendation against prosecution.

The defendant in McGuinness claimed that he merely intended to keep the classified items as personal reference materials, not to improperly disseminate them. Thus, he contended that willfulness, the mens rea (state of mind) proof requirement in Section 793(e), was legally insufficient. It was not enough, he insisted, for the prosecution to prove he had knowingly violated a legal duty regarding the safekeeping of classified information; the government needed in addition to prove bad faith – meaning: that he intended to do harm. Obviously, this is very similar to Director Comey’s theory that, in a Section 793(f) case, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove mere “gross negligence,” even though that’s what subsection (f) says. The director claims the statute should be read to require additional proof of an intent to cause harm. In McGuinness, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals rejected the defendant’s claim, and it did so in a way that is instructive for our purposes. The judges explained that in Section 793 (part of the codification of the Espionage Act of 1917), Congress sought to establish a sliding scale of violations involving the mishandling of classified information. The first subsection – Sec. 793(a) – requires proof of “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Subsequent subsections – Sec. 793(d) and (e) – “require only that the accused act ‘willfully’” (i.e., in violation of a known legal duty, but not necessarily with intent to harm the U.S.). Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the judges matter-of-factly endorse Congress’s framework: There is no hint of a problem with the concept of employing the criminal law to punish a related series of national security offenses from the most serious, involving intent to harm the United States, down to the least serious, involving gross negligence. Within that framework, the court rejects the claim that the less serious offenses require proof of the higher criminal intent called for in the more serious offenses. Clearly, Director Comey’s argument is analogous to the one the McGuinness Court rejects – i.e., that Congress mustn’t have meant what it said when it criminalized mere “gross negligence.” In positing his theory, Comey did not refer to this sliding statutory scale in which Section 793(f) is at the bottom. What McGuinness makes clear, though, is that Congress conceived a scale involving grades of misconduct and precisely meant to criminalize gross negligence at the bottom of it. If the mishandling of classified information involves more serious criminal intent, prosecutors should simply charge a more serious offense. Pace Director Comey, it is not as if all the different offenses in the series merge into one, with the least serious one requiring the most serious mental state. The military prosecutions under Section 793(f) illustrate that to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for this offense would not be to single her out. Perhaps more significantly, the offenses for which comparatively low level military personnel have been prosecuted pale in seriousness compared to the offense of the former Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton set up her own unauthorized and non-secure communications system, well aware that the nation’s most sensitive classified information would likely be transmitted on it, in violation of laws and guidelines she was obliged to enforce as the head of one of the government’s most important departments. By contrast, as Judge Mukasey outlined, the military cases are “reported felony prosecutions of soldiers for putting copies of classified documents in a gym bag and then not returning them out of fear of discovery; placing classified documents in a friend’s desk drawer and forgetting them; tossing documents meant to be destroyed in a dumpster rather than in the appropriate facility.” If we are truly worried about a double standard, how can it be that the prosecution of these military officials is appropriate but the former secretary of state has immunity?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437595/military-prosecutions-show
-gross-negligence-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 8, 2016 11:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b)
Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c)
Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d)
Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e)
Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g)
If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(h)
(1)
Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2)
The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
(A)
property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B)
any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C)
any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4)
Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, §?18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, §?1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §?804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §?607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 9, 2016 3:25 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Through all of this: the articles, sections and subsections detailing the various ways one could easily be prosecuted, Comey chose not to pursue said prosecution.
There has to be a reason why, and I believe he stated his case.

Now, one could argue, based purely on emotion, that she's guilty and pursue prosecution. This is not the case because Comey soberly treated the facts and found
it lacking; he stated as much during his testimony. But let's say that you're right
in your belief that Hillary is just another crook, just another Nixon or Christy or
Cheney. Then justice, in her infinite wisdom, will be served and these thieves and
crooks will pay.......just not yet.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 15, 2016 5:28 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This is an interesting read.

Looking at section F (complete context next post), it looks like Hillary could easily have been prosecuted, as others have been.

Also, in the 798 Section B, second paragraph, the specific definition of Cryptic as in concealing the classified nature of the emails would certainly apply.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 18, 2016 6:59 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This is an interesting read.

Looking at section F (complete context next post), it looks like Hillary could easily have been prosecuted, as others have been.

"(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, ..." intent not required

Did you really think that Libtards were going to pay any attention to the facts? Even after you clearly pointed them out, practically spoon-feeding them the truth?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2016 7:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Transcripts of Comey's answers to the House: Hilliary lied with every single question, every single answer she gave to Congress.

Who has heard of Contempt of Congress? Lying to Congress?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-j
ames-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testif
ies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live=&start=2819

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 7:11 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Transcripts of Comey's answers to the House: Hilliary lied with every single question, every single answer she gave to Congress.

Who has heard of Contempt of Congress? Lying to Congress?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-j
ames-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testif
ies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live=&start=2819

I should have pointed out, the html is transcript, and the "video" is video with transcript.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 5:21 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Transcripts of Comey's answers to the House: Hilliary lied with every single question, every single answer she gave to Congress.

Who has heard of Contempt of Congress? Lying to Congress?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-j
ames-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testif
ies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live=&start=2819

It sounds like Hilliary did some interview on Sunday, in regards to the above explicit facts that she only lies, and never tells the truth, and even the Libtard bastion Washington Post gave her 4 Pinocchios for her inability to be honest or truthful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3718137/Hillary-Clinton-slappe
d-dreaded-Four-Pinocchios-rating-false-claim-FBI-director-said-told-truth-classified-emails.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2016 8:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Another dead body, killed by Hilliary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3728222/Hillary-Clinton-discus
sed-executed-Iranian-nuclear-scientist-advisers-private-server-referring-friend.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Yet more emails that Hilliary lied about:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-
new-documents-show-top-clinton-aide-alerted-email-inquiry/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-
uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/tag/hillary-clinton-email-scandal/

I am assuming the transcripts are posted somewhere, but have not found them yet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE