You did not make a point. He was indicted for the very thing you describe, even provided you with the documentation.The only reason he was not "prosecuted" is because prosecutors agreed to drop 3 other charges (including 2 for "gross negligence) so he could avoid prison! How you figure this would have been "unprecedented" is beyond me, the only thing unprecedented is the accused was a member of the president's cabinet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Smith
Yes, he took a plea deal. THAT is my whole point. NO ONE has ever been prosecuted under "gross negligence." Not. One. Person. No one. If a prosecutor charged Hillary Clinton with "gross negligence" it would be seen as political, because there was no precedent of any other American ever being prosecuted using that charge.
I'm not sure what you don't understand. They charged him, yes. I didn't say no one was ever charged. For goodness sake, I was the person that first posted about the FBI agent being charged with gross negligence on this forum. Check my posting history. What I posted was that no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted using gross negligence. The FBI agent was not prosecuted or convicted using gross negligence BECAUSE he admitted guilt to lying to federal agents. If you can't see that there was no precedent to charge Hillary Clinton with gross negligence, I can't help you, but the facts are in your own post.
Not all of them or have they found the 30,000 she deleted So you expect us to believe that no secret information was ever sent over the server of the SOS even though some was marked and some was that was not marked. Are you claiming there never was any and we are all free to read all her emails
I'm not sure what you're failing to understand... indicting or charging Hillary with gross negligence would not be "unprecedented" just because an FBI agent took a plea deal to avoid prison! Do you even know what unprecedented means? Now obviously it has been done before in the case of the FBI agent, therefore there is a precedent! Do you get it yet? I'm not going to argue with you anymore...you're wrong in claiming it would be "unprecedented" to charge Hillary, it's really that simple!
I don't expect you to believe anything. I'm not claiming anything other than Comey's testimony was making the case for gross negligence, while knowing that there was no legal precedent for charging her with gross negligence, and he said so. If you want to see her emails, they have been posted on Wikileaks and are searchable, but they weren't hacked. They were released by her lawyers, the FBI and FOIA requests.
Thats why we have rules. In fact you cant send top secret info over anything other than a secure server unless you remove the headers like Hillary had done. I handled top secret info daily and if I had left my shop with any of it on me and been caught Id be in jail. It wouldnt matter if I forgot I had it on me or not or what I planned to do with it. I would be charged with removing classified material from a secure to an unsecure location - - - Updated - - - No Podestas are on wikileaks They never released her deleted emails they destroyed them so we couldnt ever read them
I'm glad you're not going to argue with me anymore. I am not wrong. I agree with the FBI. Precedent matters. Precedent matters even more in cases that are politically charged, as this one was. For Hillary Clinton to be the first American ever prosecuted under gross negligence in the Espionage Act would set a precedent. Here are Comey's own words- emphasis is mine on words that indicate precedent:
Why the pardon? Hillary Clinton committed no crimes. As opposed to Trump... Sexual battery Tax evasion Fraud Yes, TrumpCo brings real "grace and honesty" to the Oval Office. Maybe TrumpCo should issue a pardon to himself.
We've discussed this before. I'm not sure why you would argue a point so easily refuted: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ Hillary Clinton's emails are on Wikileaks, in a searchable database, even the ones recovered from being deleted by the FBI. Just because she deleted them, those that received the emails didn't. Those emails were recovered. Podesta's hacked emails and the DNC hacked emails are also found on Wikileaks. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/
So hen why do we have that law? No one ever violated it as badly as she thats why its never been used. So you admit shes guilty but your position is she shouldnt be prosecuted like Comey says - - - Updated - - - Those are the 30,00 she didnt delete I want to see those she deleted . Tell me where to search for them
The law is what was written. How it is prosecuted is up to the Supreme Court to determine. The Supreme Court ruled that the Espionage Act had to have the element of mens rea, or intent, in order to be prosecutable. That pretty much eliminated the use of gross negligence in the law. I linked the emails in the post above. Here's an article stating they recovered the deleted emails and began transferring them to public documents and how they recovered them. http://thehill.com/policy/national-...in-transferring-deleted-clinton-emails-friday This is not new news.
No, the interpretation of the law is the job of the Supreme Court. The Attorney General's job is to represent the United States in legal matters. This is basic civics.
It has to be challenged before the ever rule on it and in most cases they dont. The AGs job is to enforce and defend our laws http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/25/attorney-general-job-is-to-defend-law-no-exceptions.html It was Lynch who was supposed to decide whether or not to prosecute her but after meeting with slick Willy on the tarmac she had no choice but to leave it up to Comey not SCOTUS By the way nice bait and switch there going from prosecuting, that being the AGs job to interpretation which is the job of SCOTUS You claimed prosecution was up to SCOTUS
It was challenged. Gorin V. USA. Yes, it was up to Lynch and she said she was going to go on the recommendation of the FBI- which was NOT to prosecute.
The FBI agent was being prosecuted...federal prosecutors dropped the gross negligence counts in a plea deal, what part of that is confusing you? Do you know why they made this deal? Because prosecutors were facing a hearing that could have resulted in the government having to turn over classified material to Smith's defense team.
That is the argument you are making. That since no one has been prosecuted under that law she should not be prosecuted under that law. So when CAN we prosecute people under that law? So again you can't prosecute someone for a law that no one has ever been prosecuted under? He can't know what a grand jury is going to do nor what other prosecutors are going or what other evidence that prosecutor might have you know the DOJ has it's own investigators. And it WASN'T HIS DECISION TO MAKE. Comey is not a prosecutor, that is not his job.
I figured he wouldn't pardon Hillary. That explains why the Clintons looked so happy at the inauguration ha ha. Last night on Bill Maher, he thanked the Clintons for their service, and the politely asked them to away forever. They even left a bad taste in Maher's mouth, but he had to tow the line. Off topic? Bill Maher has changed the whole aesthetic of the show to mimic infowars. Hmmmmm? Does he believe that will make him as credible as Alex Jones?
None. Or we should find out this week. Yes? - - - Updated - - - Wonder if you could repost in English?
