Category Archives: culture

Clinton, Comey, and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

Jacob Gershman wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal Law Blog,

[FBI Director] Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through “gross negligence.”

That provision of the Espionage Act, the primary law governing the handling of classified information, could require at least proof that the offender knew the classified information disclosed could harm the United States or benefit a foreign power if it got into the wrong hands.

But the crime of “gross negligence” in the Espionage Act doesn’t appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents….

But what behavior would rise to the level of gross negligence that is a felony under the Espionage Act?

Perhaps the setup, maintenance, and use of an unsecured email on which State Department official business was, by design, conducted.

Perhaps the receipt and relay of emails containing Top Secret Special Access information without sequestering those emails and pointing out the failures to State’s security facility.

Perhaps the receipt and relay of emails with classification markings in them without sequestering those emails and….

Perhaps receipt and relay of 1,000+ emails originating as classified because of their content without sequestering….

Those sorts of behaviors also would seem to aggregate to the guilty knowledge that is intent.  Yet Comey said of some of the cases the FBI had previously prosecuted that they involved

…some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.

And then he said

We do not see those things here.

Unfortunately, Admiral Nelson-like, Comey put his spyglass to his bad eye, albeit with a far different purpose.  And chose not even to recommend a gross negligence prosecution, apparently because his bad eye didn’t reveal any of that to him, either.

His decision to not see is made manifest with his own words in that same statement:

This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

Democrats vs Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats assaulted democracy in Wisconsin and Indiana, saying by deed, “No democracy for you until we get our way.”

Now they’re taking their assault to the nation.  No democracy for us until they get their way.  And then it’ll be their version only.  Recall the Democrats’ assault on democracy as they tried to shut down the Congress of the United States because they couldn’t get their way on gun control.  They’re threatening to block our democracy more permanently unless they get their way.  When Congress reconvenes,

Democrats plan to pick up with their particular firearms attack precisely where they left off in late June with an unprecedented sit-in on the House floor.  From a memo from the Congressional Black Caucus leadership [emphasis added]:

Rep Robin Kelly (D, IL) would like CBC members to be present for Floor activities on gun violence when the House returns to session on Tuesday, July 5, 2016. The plan is to be as disruptive to (House) Speaker (Paul) Ryan (R, WI) as possible next week.

This is part and parcel with the FBI’s decision to whitewash Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, obeying his instructions from Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Barack Obama (D).

Elections have consequences.

Integrity, DoJ, and the FBI

Posted on by
Reply

FBI Director James Comey has obeyed his orders from his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and her boss, President Barack Obama (D), and he’s recommending no charges be filed against ex-Secretary of State and Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her…mishandling…of classified material via her unsecured email server.

This after saying in his presser announcing his recommendation,

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

In other words, lesser people should be prosecuted, at least administratively, and (not or) have their clearances lifted.  But not Democrats.

John Fund had some questions about Comey’s acquiescence; below are some of them.  It’s important to note that Comey didn’t have the moral courage to stay past his statement and answer any questions, much less these.

You said that anyone in Hillary Clinton’s position would have at least faced administrative or other sanctions for their behavior.  Would you outline what is type of sanctions have been applied in the past?  Would someone like Hillary Clinton be granted a security clearance after violations of this kind?

You stated that the handling of top secret classified material by Hillary Clinton and her aides was “extremely careless.”  Lawyers say that is the definition of the “gross negligence” statute that provides for prosecution of anyone who allows classified information to be mishandled.  What is the difference between those terms in your opinion, and is there a legal difference?

You mentioned that some of the classified information was marked as classified when Mrs. Clinton handled those emails.  Is that not the definition of “gross negligence” that should trigger the statute mandating prosecution of those mishandling sensitive information.

There is a parallel investigation into Mrs. Clinton being conducted by the FBI into possible corruption involving the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.  What is the status of that investigation and do you believe that probe will be finished before Americans go to the polls to elect a president in November?

Did any of the deleted emails recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s email server bear on the investigation of the Clinton Foundation?

It appears that roughly one-in-15 of the work-related messages that Clinton sent or received on the private server have been classified at some level. A total of 22 emails were classified as top secret—the highest level of secrecy.  You said that we should expect some of that information is in the hands of others. Would you characterize how bad the damage to national security would be if that information be compromised?

There’s integrity, Democrat style.

Schedule Destruction

Posted on by
Reply

In the course of a court-ordered (because the lady was unwilling to talk otherwise) deposition before Judicial Watch pursuant to a FOIA lawsuit (because the State Department was refusing otherwise to follow the law and provide the requested information or any reason why not), Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s close aid Huma Abedin said that Clinton had destroyed—”burned”—several pages of her Secretary of State calendar’s schedule.

If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that…that certainly happened on…on more than one occasion[.]

Only copies?  That likely would be OK.  But how do we know that only copies were burned?  After all, Clinton already has said she destroyed 30,000 emails that she claims were personal—with no way anyone else can know these documents in fact were personal; Clinton did the destruction by herself, without so much as a fare-thee-well to State before she’d done it.

With an honest DoJ, this would raise questions of evidence tampering.

Hmm….

Independence Day

Posted on by
Reply

I posted this in 2012; it bears repeating.

On this day 236 years ago, a group of Americans got together and, pledging their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor to each other while relying on the protection of divine Providence, took our country free from tyranny and set us on a new, wholly experimental course.

These men openly acknowledged both our right and our duty to throw off any government that too badly violates its moral obligations to us sovereign citizens, that for too long abuses our liberties and our individual responsibilities.  At the same time, though, they acknowledged that routinely rebelling at every small offense was equally wrong: Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.  Yet those light and transient offenses want correction along with those abuses and moral failures.

And so, while fighting (and some dying) for our newly born nation and during the immediately ensuing years of a troubled peace, these men, with others from the newly independent and united States joining them, in a second phase of our experiment invented a wholly new form of government.  They created a government that would recognize the essential sovereignty of the members of a voluntarily formed social compact over our compact’s government, and they gave that government a structure and a strictly limited set of authorities designed to maximize our control of government and our ability to maintain that control.

They also invented a wholly new mechanism for throwing off an abusive government and replacing it with one more suited to our needs and to our control: a set of elections that would let us turn all the rascals out of one house of our legislative body every two years, that would let us depose the whole of the other house of our legislative body in sequential one-third increments every two years, and that would let us fire the chief executive of this government every four years—any and all whom we found wanting during their time in office.  This invention was accompanied by another invention of these men: a judiciary that sat, neither above nor below our executive and legislative, but equal to and separate from them—a third powerful check that granted stability to the whole.

We are here today arguing amongst ourselves, usually with great passion, over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, climate change, Benghazi, emails, and a host of other things, too, both momentous and trivial.  And we could not be without the genius and the sacrifice of those men those 235 and more years ago.

As you sit around by your barbecue, or at the beach, or wherever you may be, hamburgers and hotdogs in hand, beer nearby, children screaming and yelling in their own happinesses, take a moment to think about that.