From the comments, unless not;
Looks like you missed a story which occurred yesterday Susan. Hillary Clinton illegally destroyed public records, which means she committed a crime, and then she was absolved in a press conference with Comey, which FBI Directors about never have. You are reporting something other than what the most important story was yesterday. It's like you ignored it. Not one mention. It's like you don't care whether or not an unindicted criminal was at a rally with the President of the United States of America, whose administration let Clinton off the hook for crimes others went to jail and lost jobs for. How is she supposed to get a security clearance?
Rarely have 30 minutes of television
so perfectly encapsulated the decline and fall of the rule of law
and the extraordinary privileges enjoyed by America’s liberal elite.
After listing abuse after abuse — and detailing lie after lie
— Comey declared that ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would prosecute Hillary
for her obvious and manifest crimes. It’s good to be a Clinton.
National Review’s David French
“Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules" . . "(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally Current through Pub. L. 114-38 . . That happened yesterday Susan . . "(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute,
inserting an intent element that Congress did not require.
The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense:
The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence
is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation
to safeguard national defense secrets;
when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence,
they are guilty of serious wrongdoing.
The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant.
People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
Former assistant U.S. attorney"a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." (1) Title 18 U.S. Code § 1924 (Misdemeanor) Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
The gross negligence in using her private email to send classified information
in direct contradiction of what the candidate has claimed
could have amounted to one or more criminal charges.
Howard KurtzThis kind of lie by omission journalism is part of why our county is going down the tubes.
Monday, July 4, 2016; Hillary Clinton illegally destroyed public records, which means she committed a crime
I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.” Hillary Clinton NBC interview, July 2016.
the FBI found 110 emails in 52 separate chains
that were classified when they were sent or received.
And intent does not matter when it comes to bringing charges.
Was she allowed to use a private server?
Did Clinton seek government approval to use a private server
Did Clinton’s emails contain classified information?
Yes. More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails
Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received USA Today
There is no classified material.”
News conference, March 2015.
the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.
“I responded right away
News conference, March 2015.
Unauthorized removal and destruction of classified material
On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants. Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.
In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington.
On December 20, 2006, Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)". Berger acknowledged having later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.
Berger was fined $50,000, sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years. The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals, but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. During the House Government Reform Committee hearings, Nancy Kegan Smith — who was the director of the presidential documents staff at the National Archives and Records Administration — acknowledged that she had granted Berger access to original materials in her office.
On May 17, 2007, Berger relinquished his license to practice law as a result of the Justice Department investigation. Saying, "I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license. ... While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize." By giving up his license, Berger avoided cross-examination by the Bar Counsel regarding details of his thefts.