Some Pigs ARE More Equal than Others – Comey Says Hillary is Simply Grossly Incompetent – No Recommendation for Indictment

Posted by Tina

FBI Director Comey disclosed exactly what his investigation into Hillary’s private email server found this morning. After explaining that emails of the highest secret level had been sent and received and after finding that multiple devices and multiple servers were used at times in sensitive loactions, they could find no “intent” to break the law.

Something stinks! Here’s why:

Comey emphasized the lack of intent in his decision not to recommend prosecution. But this ignores the actual language of the law regarding gross negligence. Andrew F. Emerson explained on these pages:

The four most applicable Espionage Act statutes to Clinton’s post resignation detention of government records are 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 798, 1924, and 2071. These statutes frequently define the mens rea requirement in terms of willfully, intentionally, and knowingly. A comprehensive analysis of all elements of these statues would require a multipage brief. It is critical to note that these various mens rea do not include proving intent to injure the United States. Nevertheless, mens rea requirements are slippery to define. In essence, the term “willfully” can best be defined as an intentional act with knowledge that it violates the law. “Specific intent”, applicable to some of the foregoing statutes, is defined as intending to commit a particular act with knowledge of a consequence to follow or intending a consequence. “Knowingly” refers generally to being aware that the conduct is of such nature as is prohibited by law, or in other contexts, that certain prohibited consequences will be the natural consequence of the action. Section 793(f) even lowers the requisite mens rea to gross negligence, generally defined as a very great negligence, or the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care. It amounts to indifference so far as other persons are concerned. [emphasis added]

Despite the language in the statutes, Hillary is free to say, “Tolda ya!” And her gross, reckless negligence, incompetence (and criminality) at State will wash away for her fawning fans and supporters.

What about the rest of us who don’t buy that Hillary tripped and set up a private server or that she stumbled and classified information was accidentally sent and received on her blackberry. Maybe she sat on her Blackberry and oooops…

How will voters respond? Is the person Comey described “presidential material? Is this woman, who played fast and loose with the lives of diplomats and agents and intentionally hid that negligence and recklessness by keeping her work outside the government system, competent and trustworthy enough to guide this nation for the next four years?

Trump is correct: The system is rigged. Petraeus yes:

On April 23, 2015, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials. He was given a two-year probationary period and a fine of $100,000

Hillary, no? Hillary doesn’t even get a recommendation for trial?

American Thinker:

The four most applicable Espionage Act statutes to Clinton’s post resignation detention of government records are 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 798, 1924, and 2071. These statutes frequently define the mens rea requirement in terms of willfully, intentionally, and knowingly. A comprehensive analysis of all elements of these statues would require a multipage brief. It is critical to note that these various mens rea do not include proving intent to injure the United States. Nevertheless, mens rea requirements are slippery to define. In essence, the term “willfully” can best be defined as an intentional act with knowledge that it violates the law. “Specific intent”, applicable to some of the foregoing statutes, is defined as intending to commit a particular act with knowledge of a consequence to follow or intending a consequence. “Knowingly” refers generally to being aware that the conduct is of such nature as is prohibited by law, or in other contexts, that certain prohibited consequences will be the natural consequence of the action. Section 793(f) even lowers the requisite mens rea to gross negligence, generally defined as a very great negligence, or the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care. It amounts to indifference so far as other persons are concerned.

In summary, Secretary Clinton’s conduct included (1) Written acknowledgement of the unlawfulness of maintaining personal custody of classified information after departure from her post as secretary of state; (2) Her acknowledgement, in March 2015, that she was familiar with the rules governing classification; (3) Her conscious decision to forego complying with the known requisite procedures, concerning documentation or its removal upon departure from the State Department; (4) Her unilateral decision to freely move the governmental documents to the Platte River server; and (5) Her subsequent unilateral destruction of documents including some that were clearly governmental as opposed to private in nature

The foregoing conduct reflects an intentional private retention of classified and other federal records whose proper place of custody was with the State Department. There is evidence that the acts were done not only intentionally, but with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the acts as opposed to being a product of mere carelessness on the part of Secretary Clinton. For example, unilaterally avoiding the SF 312 requirements upon her departure from State, coupled with retention of the materials for 22 months in the face of Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and a congressional subpoena to the State Department, confirms that another motive other than her stated “convenience” was present in Secretary Clinton’s actions. In short, she wished to place the documents beyond the purview of public scrutiny under FOIA or through subpoena by retaining them in her custody as a private citizen. Ultimately, the discovery of her personal custody over the private server necessitated the reopening of previously closed FOIA lawsuits for purposes of supplementing the requested productions with Secretary Clinton’s emails. Her private retention additionally explains why the first subpoena from the Benghazi Special Committee to the State Department, encompassing all related Benghazi documents, resulted in the production of a grand total of eight Clinton emails. After the discovery of the private email server, Clinton was to produce approximately 55,000 pages of federal records

The cited statutes from the Espionage Act can, for the most part, be summarized as prohibiting the willful or intentional removal of classified information from its proper place of custody, prohibiting the willful concealment of classified information that has been maintained by the government, and prohibiting intentional destruction of classified materials. In the case of §§ 793 and 2071, the materials need not rise to the level of “classified.” Her private retention of the government records for 22 months and transfer to Platte River evidences intent to conceal the existence of the records. Her destruction of some of the government records certainly appear to fulfill the various mens rea requirements of one or more of these federal statutes. Indeed, her compilation of the records without the participation of the State Department coupled with the deletion of so called “private emails” is among the most damning evidence against Clinton.

Voters must decide. Our government officials will not.

Related: Politico:

On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server is likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.

In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The case ruled on by the D.C. Circuit focused on a relatively obscure White House unit: the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

At least one federal judge handling a FOIA suit focused on Clinton’s emails said last month he was watching to see how the D.C. Circuit ruled in the dispute involving Obama science adviser John Holdren and an account he kept on a server at the non-profit Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

After the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute filed suit over a request for work-related emails sent to or from that private account used by Holdren, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled last year that the government had no duty to search an email account that wasn’t part of OSTP’s official system.

But the three D.C. Circuit judges who ruled Tuesday all said Kessler was too rash in throwing out the suit and they agreed the case should be reinstated.

While the opinions in the case make no mention of Clinton or her private server, it seems evident that all three appeals judges involved are aware of the obvious analogy.

“If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental emails on an account in another domain, that purpose is hardly served. It would make as much sense to say that the department head could deprive requestors of hard-copy documents by leaving them in a file at his daughter’s house and then claiming that they are under her control,” Judge David Sentelle wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Harry Edwards.

FBI, IRS, EPA…“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Watch a 1950’s production of “Animal Farm” here.

This reflects poorly on the entire Democrat Party. The reality will be lost on many of our citizens.