OpenCDA

July 5, 2016

FBI Director’s Statement Regarding Clinton Email Server

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , — Bill @ 8:38 am

Clinton 100Opacity[

Here is the text of the entire statement FBI Director James Comey made at a press briefing a few minutes ago:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

2 Comments

  1. This excerpt makes absolutely no sense. How do we conclude that “evidence” is extremely careless … bla bla bla … which somehow does not make it “clear” enough?

    Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

    Our government is totally incompetent, corrupt, and inept, they are a mockery of justice and leadership. I would be embarrassed to be any elected official at this time and do nothing or I can assume they are as equally irresponsible and disrespectful of the people. I have no confidence in them at all, none. This is it, I want to sue somebody.

    Comment by Stebbijo — July 5, 2016 @ 3:40 pm

  2. Stebbijo,

    The decision to charge Clinton will be made by DoJ attorneys. The absence of “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate the laws” depends on what the meaning of “clear” is. It also depends on applying the wording of certain statutes which require “specific intent” while other statutes only require “general intent.”

    Intent is a state of mind.

    After listening or reading Comey’s statement today, several legal authorities and scholars have opined that a prosecutor could professionally and ethically charge Clinton under US Code § 18-793(f). There is no mention of “intent” in that section and subsection, substituting “gross negligence” based on demonstrated conduct for the particular state of mind amounting to either general or specific intent. If Congress had intended “intent” to be an element of § 18-793(f), it would have specifically used that term as it did in § 18-794.

    All we can do is wait to see what the DoJ lawyers decide. Comey’s statement today takes the heat off the FBI and shifts it to the layers of lawyers at Main Justice. Conceivably they could conclude that there is sufficient evidence to charge and prosecute Clinton (Did I just see a passel of pigs fly by my upstairs window?)

    Comment by Bill — July 5, 2016 @ 7:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2017 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved