Say it with me: Hillary Clinton is above the Law!

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

There may be nothing come out of these hearings today with Comey and God knows the dems on the committee are carrying evil Hillary's water. Trey Gowdy has skewered Comey on all of HRC's lies regarding her emails. I am guessing Comey would rather be in Philadelphia right now. What a toady and shill.

Comey had his moment to do the right thing. I'm sure he didn't want that moment, but nevertheless it was his and his alone. Sadly for all of us he chose not to do the right thing and he compromised for good whatever principles that I can only assume that he once had. He deserves whatever grilling he gets.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by abc_123

Comey had his moment to do the right thing. I'm sure he didn't want that moment, but nevertheless it was his and his alone. Sadly for all of us he chose not to do the right thing and he compromised for good whatever principles that I can only assume that he once had. He deserves whatever grilling he gets.

I would guess he found it less frightening than what he might get if he did the right thing and charged Hitlery.

TR

[spherojon]

I have been watching FBI Director Comey answer questions this morning (for us on the west coast). I am no lawyer, but someone please explain to me how Killary is not going to be charged with Perjury.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...fends-fbi.html

Its also trickery that the Director cannot remember specific things about the FBI interview with Killary, but he can remember other cases and statures...conveniently.

This entire congressional hearing has to be the nail on the coffin for the American people that this is corruption 101.

[Hand]

I'm playing catch up right now but you can watch the whole thing here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-...probe&live&vod

[spherojon]

At about the 1:06 mark, dealing with giving non-cleared people access to classified information. I am in shock. Apparently there are no consequences for giving out classified information. WOW. That was good questioning from the Chairman.

Edit: 2:18 p.m. Comey tells Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, that there is "no doubt" that some of Clinton's lawyers who sifted through her emails did not have security clearance.

"Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?" Chaffetz asked.

"Yes," Comey said, though he noted that there was no evidence of criminal intent by Clinton in allowing her lawyers to sort through the emails.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by spherojon

I have been watching FBI Director Comey answer questions this morning (for us on the west coast). I am no lawyer, but someone please explain to me how Killary is not going to be charged with Perjury.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...fends-fbi.html

Its also trickery that the Director cannot remember specific things about the FBI interview with Killary, but he can remember other cases and statures...conveniently.

This entire congressional hearing has to be the nail on the coffin for the American people that this is corruption 101.

It depends on the QUESTIONS you ask! Silly Rabbit.

Q 1) Good morning Madam Secretary, thank you for coming in. Isn't it a beautiful day?

A 1) Yes.

Q 2) Madam Secretary, have you made mistakes in your life?

A 2) Yes.

Q 3) Madam Secretary, could you expand on that?

A 3) Yes.

Q 4) A little more detail?

A 4) Well, yes.

Q 5) Madam Secretary, could you explain your involvement in the misappropriation of classified government documents, transmitted and received via a private and non-secure server in violation of several known rules, regulations and laws established to protect such nationally sensitive information that it could cause irreparable damage to our country and national security?

A 5) No.

Thank you, I think we are done here. Have a nice day!

Oh, Madam Secretary, one last question. "Do you know the circumstances and how Vince Foster died?"

Yes.

Thank you. We're finished here.

[Oldrotorhead]

Consider what the consequences would be if thr Chinese or Russians have hacked and copied Hitlery's emails and she is elected.
1. They contact her with proof and they own her.
Or
2. She doesn't cave and we have a national crisis.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

There may be nothing come out of these hearings today with Comey and God knows the dems on the committee are carrying evil Hillary's water. Trey Gowdy has skewered Comey on all of HRC's lies regarding her emails. I am guessing Comey would rather be in Philadelphia right now. What a toady and shill.

Comey left open that he'd need a congressional referral to investigate the issues of perjury RE her statements on record/under oath, and his findings, since he didn't want to dabble across Exec/Legis lines. Chaffetz indicated he'd have that referral within hours.

There's a recess! Be sure to visit our Snackbar in the lobby before we begin our Feature Presentation.

[Hand]

I see why people think that the republicans are "just out to get her".

Every Democrat on the comittee:
"Welcome Mr Comey and thank you for your exemplary service to this country. Your department is, and always has been held in the utmost regard. We aplogize that you have been drug here in front of us today simply to satisfy some partisan need to discredit your findings and to further waste the taxpayers money. The same people who just two weeks ago were praising you for your work (Republicans), are now castigating you for your conclusion. Blah blah white people are trying to kill black people and trump is behind it all blah blah. Thank you very much for your time".

[Golf1echo]

By God it's good to see my Congressman, Represenative Mark Meadows separate the out and out BULL SHIT from this subversive cartel's story line. 1:18 aprox. Clarifies perjury has taken place........and that doesn't seem to even be on the FBI's or the DOJ's radar. No surprise there but the clearer these travesties can be communicated come Nov. the better chance voters with Americas future at heart will have. I am already seeing liberals question what they hell is going on here, as this is blatant collusion.

[Team Sergeant]

Lying to federal agents......anyone else would have been arrested and placed in jail.


Hillary Clinton is above the Law!




18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.




Comey testifies Clinton email claims ‘not true’ at heated Hill hearing

Published July 07, 2016


FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s claims -- some made under oath -- about her use of a private email server were “not true,” fueling Republican questions about whether in doing so she committed a felony.

In a wide-ranging appearance before the House oversight committee, Comey also said Clinton’s email practices put America’s secrets at risk and her actions constituted the “definition of carelessness.”

At the same time, Comey staunchly defended the bureau’s decision not to pursue charges. He also said, “We have no basis to conclude that [Clinton] lied to the FBI.”

Yet he acknowledged that lying under oath is a felony, as some Republicans point to statements she made last October before the House Benghazi committee -- and plan to request an investigation. At that hearing, Clinton had claimed that nothing she sent or received was marked classified.

Comey was asked about such claims, which she also made publicly, in a pointed exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

“That’s not true. … There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.

On her claim that she used one device, Comey also said, “She used multiple devices.”

And on her claim that she turned over all work-related emails, he said, “No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.”


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l-hearing.html
· FoxNews.com

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by Hand

I see why people think that the republicans are "just out to get her".

Every Democrat on the comittee:
"Welcome Mr Comey and thank you for your exemplary service to this country. Your department is, and always has been held in the utmost regard. We aplogize that you have been drug here in front of us today simply to satisfy some partisan need to discredit your findings and to further waste the taxpayers money. The same people who just two weeks ago were praising you for your work (Republicans), are now castigating you for your conclusion. Blah blah white people are trying to kill black people and trump is behind it all blah blah. Thank you very much for your time".

I think we pretty much heard the same statement (change the names) when HRC was grilled at the Benghazi hearings from all of the dems. It's in there playbook.

[spherojon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...6ac_video.html

"In our system of law there's a thing called mens rea. It's important to know what you did. But when you did it, this Latin phrase mens rea means: What were you thinking?" he said, waving his hands like a law professor in front of a classroom of first-year students (we assume.) "And we don't want to put people in jail that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do."

As to how that applies to the Clinton case:

"I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding with ... knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...intons-emails/

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton should have a new appreciation for the legal concept of mens rea—literally, "defendant's mind"—because it looks like it will save her from federal prosecution for her use of a personal email server as secretary of state. In recommending that the Justice Department not bring charges against Clinton, FBI Director James Comey distinguished her "extremely careless" handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information" from previous cases involving "intentional and willful mishandling."

Not every potential federal defendant gets the benefit of such distinctions. Consider the retired racecar driver on a snowmobile outing in Colorado who got lost in a blizzard and unwittingly crossed into a National Forest Wilderness Area, the Native Alaskan trapper who sold 10 sea otters to a buyer he mistakenly believed was also a Native Alaskan, and the 11-year-old Virginia girl who rescued a baby woodpecker from her cat.

The first two of these incidents resulted in misdemeanor and felony convictions, respectively, while the third led to a fine (later rescinded) and threats of prosecution. All three qualify as federal crimes, even though the perpetrators had no idea they were breaking the law—a kind of injustice that would be addressed by reforms that opponents falsely portray as a special favor to corporate polluters and other felonious fat cats.

The federal code contains something like 5,000 criminal statutes and describes an estimated 30,000 regulatory violations that can be treated as crimes. The fact that no one knows the precise numbers is itself a scandal, compounded by the fact that many of these provisions include minimal or no mens rea requirements, which specify the mental state required for conviction.

The upshot is that innocent acts, honest mistakes, and simple accidents can lead to criminal convictions that deprive people of their liberty and property, ruin their reputations, and carry lifelong collateral consequences ranging from impaired occupational opportunities to the loss of constitutional rights. That's a serious problem recognized by Democrats as well as Republicans, as demonstrated by the bipartisan support for mens rea reform in the House of Representatives.

Yet Senate Democrats dismiss the proposed changes, which would add culpability requirements to statutes that do not address the issue, as "corporate protection." They blame Republican insistence on mens rea reform for imperiling a criminal justice reform bill that until recently seemed likely to pass this year.

It would be a shame if disagreement on this issue prevented Congress from reducing excessively harsh federal sentences. But Senate Democrats' critique of mens rea reform is seriously misguided, if not downright disingenuous.

Their chief complaint, also voiced by the Justice Department, is that requiring the government to prove a defendant knew he was breaking the law will make it harder to convict people. No kidding. The same could be said of many safeguards widely supported by civil libertarians, including the presumption of innocence, the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the ban on double jeopardy.

No doubt guilty people, including violent criminals, escape conviction because of these rules. Likewise, if Congress beefed up federal mens rea requirements, some white-collar malefactors probably would escape criminal punishment as a result. But that prospect should not deter Congress from doing what's right.

"The critics of mens rea reform—there's no way of overestimating the cynicism of these people," said Harvey Silverglate, a leading critic of overcriminalization, in a recent interview with Reason TV. "They're saying, 'It would be a terrible thing, because the people we don't like—corporate executives—they will be able to get off by arguing that there's absolutely no criminal intent on their part. So you want absolute criminal liability for people you don't like. However, when they come at you, suddenly you say, 'Well, I didn't intend to break the law.'"

That defense is deeply rooted in our moral intuitions and legal traditions. As the Supreme Court observed in 1952, "The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil."

To impose criminal penalties on people for inadvertent violations of the law is plainly unjust, regardless of their occupation or social class. That the guilty will sometimes benefit from this principle is no excuse for denying its protection to the innocent.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/0...ntal-criminals

What a circus.

Fine I will say it TS: Hillary Clinton is above the Law!

[Hand]

Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority

Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled "Classified National Security Information" (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as "Top Secret" or "Secret":

TOP SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor)

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The Director of National Drug Control Policy

The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Chair or Co-Chairs, President's Intelligence Advisory Board

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of State

The Secretary of the Treasury

The Secretary of Defense

The Attorney General

The Secretary of Energy

The Secretary of Homeland Security

The Director of National Intelligence

The Secretary of the Army

The Secretary of the Navy

The Secretary of the Air Force

The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Director, Information Security Oversight Office

SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The United States Trade Representative

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of Agriculture

The Secretary of Commerce

The Secretary of Health and Human Services

The Secretary of Transportation

The Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

Any delegation of this authority shall be in accordance with section 1.3(c) of the Executive Order, except that the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not delegate the authority granted in this order. If an agency head without original classification authority under this order, or otherwise delegated in accordance with section 1.3(c) of the Executive Order, has an exceptional need to classify information originated by their agency, the matter shall be referred to the agency head with appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority in accordance with section 1.3(e) of the Executive Order. If the agency with appropriate subject
matter interest and classification authority cannot readily be determined, the matter shall be referred to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

Presidential designations ordered prior to the issuance of the Executive Order are revoked as of the date of this order. However, delegations of authority to classify information originally that were made in accordance with the provisions of section 1.4 of Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, by officials designated under this order shall continue in effect, provided that the authority of such officials is delegable under this order.

This order shall be published in the Federal Register.


BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 29, 2009.

# # #

Some here may likely know this, listening to the hearing today I just learned that Hillary Klinton was one of the Original Classification Authorities. How is it even possible that she can play "I didn't know" with this?

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by Hand

Some here may likely know this, listening to the hearing today I just learned that Hillary Klinton was one of the Original Classification Authorities. How is it even possible that she can play "I didn't know" with this?

We had a big discussion about this on another board. She's the OCA for information originating with DoS. Information that came from other agencies or that is up-classified by other agencies would not necessarily be known to be classified by SoS unless it was carrying the appropriate markings. I hate it, but it's correct.

As an OCA, she can also wave her hand and downgrade the classification of various information that originated within her department with nothing more than a memo. My contention is that had she been charged she would have been able to produce memos for all of the DoS originated emails. (backdated, of course).

On a side note... isn't the person or persons who removed SAP info from the SCIF guilty as hell? That's not mishandling, it's deliberate espionage.