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

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Friday, August 12, 2016 05:54
VIEWED: 2469
PAGE 1 of 1

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 6, 2016 5:54 AM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 8, 2016 5:49 AM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 8, 2016 6:22 AM

And hey!
Her emails:

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

REAVERFAN

Friday, July 8, 2016 6:42 AM

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

SECOND

Friday, July 8, 2016 7:56 AM

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.

1KIKI

Saturday, July 9, 2016 9:15 AM

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 inst

1KIKI

Saturday, July 9, 2016 9:23 AM

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, tran

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, July 9, 2016 1:25 PM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, July 16, 2016 3:28 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:59 AM

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?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 5:52 AM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:11 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 3:21 AM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:32 AM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, August 12, 2016 5:54 AM

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.