quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Chafetz and Ryan want a new investigation into the investigation, I take it they wont stop till its been investigated as many times as the ACA was "repealed"

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

UCMJ is a separate law from civilian. If W or St. Wrinklemeat were under UCMJ they would have shot the fuckers and tied them to a jeep and dragged them around the bases.

Try not making your bed in the Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

cd, I think you did a great job responding to the situation...

i hope in the coming days someone will enumerate, all in one place, the laws she broke.

I remember comey talking about how Clinton deleted work emails but, if I remember rightly, because hey that's just the way people use email, she actually didn't destroy public records.

that also seems gets her off the perjury charge related to "yes I turned over all my work emails."

I don't recall hearing anything relative to the clinton foundation.

quote:

Update: Chaffetz let Comey know that he will be sending the FBI a congressional referral to investigate whether Clinton lied under oath.

quote:

Go read Cortney's post featuring video of Congressman Trey Gowdy leading James Comey through a parade of lies Hillary Clinton has told about her email misconduct since her improper scheme came to light last year. At first blush, it seems as though Gowdy is merely embarrassing Clinton, inducing the FBI director into issue rapid-fire debunkings of her many untruths. Sure, it's good political theater that underscores how deeply and consistently dishonest Clinton has been with voters, the media and Congress (under oath) throughout this imbroglio. But it was more than that. The key bit comes about two minutes into the clip, when Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, asks Comey about how "false exculpatory statements" (a.k.a. self-serving lies) can be used against a defendant in a criminal case.

quote:

Watch:
GOWDY: False exculpatory statements -- they are used for what?
COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
GOWDY: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt right?
COMEY: Right.

The South Carolinian goes on to give a bit of a speech that may sound like grandstanding and lecturing, but he was actually making a crucial point by following through on the logic.

Let's take a step back briefly: During his testimony, Comey effectively admitted that he was leaning on precedent to more or less ignore the fact that the law as written does not require proof of intent in order to launch a "gross negligence" prosecution. (Speaking of that term,
Comey said during the hearing that Hillary's conduct was "the definition of negligence"). Set aside the fact that Congress -- you know, the actual lawmakers -- have not seen fit to change the letter of the law over the century of enforcement, or lack thereof, Comey references.

Set aside the question of whether it's within Comey's authority to basically rewrite laws based on precedent. And set aside the point that Hillary's decision to order the creation of her unsecure email scheme was a manifestly intentional act -- especially when no "reasonable person" in her position could have thought such an act was appropriate, according to Comey's own words.

What Gowdy is drilling down on here is that ex post facto lies to cover up improper or illegal conduct is routinely presented by government lawyers as evidence of willfulness and intent. "Very rarely do defendants announce, 'on this date, I intend to break this criminal code section,'" Gowdy explains, stating the obvious. Prosecutors have to demonstrate intent through other means, such as...highlighting disproven false exculpatory statements. In other words, Gowdy is asking, how can her many lies be construed as anything other than consciousness of guilt? And based on the prosecutorial practices Comey described in this exchange, how can he continue to coherently argue that Mrs. Clinton lacked intent? Good questions. There isn't a persuasive answer to them, aside from 'under immense outside pressures, Comey blinked.' Here's another little chestnut from today's proceedings:

quote:

UPDATE: FBI director says questionable whether Clinton had sophisticated-enough understanding to recognize classified email markings
— Reuters Politics (@ReutersPolitics) July 7, 2016

A former First Lady, United States Senator and Secretary of State was too unsophisticated to understand how classified markings work?

Let's make her president, Charles Cooke snarks; more seriously, though, she insisted with great vehemence on many occasions that there were no emails marked as classified on her server. That was a lie. And the excuse for that lie is she's too obtuse and clueless to have known better? This highly-educated and notoriously calculating veteran of high-level political service? Please. Also, since there was so much discussion of precedent earlier, read this. Parting thought, via former US prosecutor Shannen Coffin: Forget the "gross negligence" felony.

How on earth did the FBI pass on the slam-dunk misdemeanor charge related to storing "such [classified] documents or materials at an unauthorized location"?

UPDATE - No intent?

Dear God, Comey admits under oath her attorneys scrubbed devices in a way to prevent forensic recovery.. Astounding
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) July 7, 2016

And another layer of malfeasance:
I guess she just accidentally gave a ton of classified e-mail to a bunch of people she knew didn't have clearance. https://t.co/UEejQh3R1p
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 7, 2016

quote:

Although the former secretary of state’s closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides’ hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president.

The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton’s private server to be “top secret.” It was suspended in April so as not to interfere with the FBI’s inquiry. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the probe is restarting after the Justice Department’s announcement Wednesday that it won’t bring any criminal charges.

“We will aim to be as expeditious as possible, but we will not put artificial deadlines on the process,” Kirby said. “Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations.”

Kirby wouldn’t say anything more about the precise information officials are evaluating. But when the probe was launched almost six months ago, officials said it pertained particularly to a set of emails that were upgraded to one of the nation’s highest classification levels. One question they said they were investigating was whether any of the emails were classified at the time of transmission.

Additionally Thursday, Republican lawmakers said they would now ask the FBI to investigate whether Clinton lied to the committee. That announcement came in a testy hearing with FBI Director James Comey, who defended the government’s decision not to prosecute Clinton over her private email setup.

Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter.

But Kirby said this week former officials can still face punishment. Options range from counseling and warnings to the revocation of an individual’s security clearance.

Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is will most likely examine confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin — who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton’s former policy chief, could be national security adviser.

“There could be repercussions,” Kirby told reporters Wednesday, saying infractions identified would be kept on file. If someone’s security clearance is taken away, he said it would have an effect “assuming that individual still needed the clearance to work in another federal agency or something like that.”

The State Department says it won’t identify former officials that still hold security clearances. But in an email Fox News made public earlier this year, the department described Mills as still holding a valid clearance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

cd, I think you did a great job responding to the situation...

i hope in the coming days someone will enumerate, all in one place, the laws she broke.

I remember comey talking about how Clinton deleted work emails but, if I remember rightly, because hey that's just the way people use email, she actually didn't destroy public records.

that also seems gets her off the perjury charge related to "yes I turned over all my work emails."

I don't recall hearing anything relative to the clinton foundation.

quote:

Update: Chaffetz let Comey know that he will be sending the FBI a congressional referral to investigate whether Clinton lied under oath.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/07/07/comey-hearing-n2189236

quote:

During FBI Director James Comey's nearly five hours of testimony before Congress on Thursday, Republicans repeatedly brought up an allegation that Hillary Clinton lied under oath during a committee hearing.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz went so far as to tell Comey he would request the agency investigate whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath to Congress "in the next few hours."

Later in the hearing, when pressed, Comey said the reason an investigation had not been opened yet was that, "out of respect for the legislative branch being a separate branch, we do not commence investigations that focus on activities before Congress without Congress asking us to get involved."With that request now seeming all but guaranteed, CNBC broke down the consequences of lying to Congress in five questions.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31066137/media-kit/

Q: What are the rules about lying to Congress?

A: Glad you asked. If you are testifying in front of Congress sometime soon, and are wondering how far you can bend the truth, there are a two key statutes governing perjury you need to be aware of: U.S. Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18.

Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both. Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.

Q: What potential punishment would someone who lied to Congress face?

A: If you paid attention during the last section, you may have read that general perjury comes with a maximum five-year prison sentence and potential fine. The same basically goes for not telling the truth to Congress, even without an oath. However, if the lie under Section 1001 involves terrorism, the maximum prison sentence rises to eight years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31066137/media-kit/

Seth B. Waxman, a former federal prosecutor, wrote that a punishment was unlikely.

"Certainly, the FBI could open an investigation for perjury charges, but such a case would likely be even more difficult to prove than the disclosure of classified information because there would be an even greater need to get inside the head of Mrs. Clinton; something the FBI was unable to do in the context of the disclosure of classified information."

Q: Who has ever lied to Congress?

A: This might be a tough one to answer comprehensively especially because it is extremely rare to see charges brought. In fact, a study from 2007 found just six successful convictions of perjury or related charges in relation to Congress in the previous 60 years.

However, one recent case jumps to mind, the testimony of former CIA Director Michael Hayden in which he seemingly misled Congress about the agency's interrogation program. And while it wasn't Congress, who could forget the charges that Bill Clinton in 1998 provided false testimony under oath in the Paula Jones case?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31066137/media-kit/

Q: Why exactly are Republicans saying Hillary Clinton lied to Congress?

A: During a 2015 hearing on the Benghazi attack, Clinton told Congressman Jim Jordan that, "[t]here was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received." Comey refuted that statement Thursday, testifying that some emails on Clinton's server contained markings that indicated confidential material, although he allowed perhaps Clinton did not understand what the marking meant. [I think nbc is being generous here as well as possibly understating]

"I think it's possible — possible — that she didn't understand what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that," Comey said of Clinton.

Q: What kind of political fallout will Clinton face?

A: File this away in the category of questions the Clinton campaign hopes never to answer. Republicans will use Comey's testimony to continue their efforts to paint Clinton as reckless and careless with national security, and his words will almost certainly continually play on attack ads throughout the rest of the cycle. If the past week saw Trump endure damage over a tweet many have condemned as anti-semitic, Clinton's political stock has definitely taken a hit over the past few days.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31066137/media-kit/

But, the ultimate impact is still to be determined.

quote:

The Ohio congressman referred to the statements of FBI director James Comey, who had announced Tuesday that he would not recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, but whose findings prove that much of what Clinton told the Benghazi committee about her emails was false.

Specifically, Clinton told the Benghazi committee that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the government; that there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails”; and that her attorneys “went through every single e-mail.”

According to Comey, all of those statements were false.[note that the nbc article above failed to mention some of these]

Jordan said that while he would leave the decision as to whether Clinton should be prosecuted for perjury to others, “what I do know is the questions I asked and the answers she gave didn’t square with what Mr. Comey said yesterday.”

He added: “And that should not happen in a country as great as ours, where people under oath in positions of real leadership and real importance in our government aren’t giving it to us straight. And again, it’s not my words — that’s what Director Comey said yesterday about Secretary Clinton, and the responses she gave to some of the questions that we asked her back in October.”

Comey will testify before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday. Jordan said that the committee would press Comey about why Clinton was treated as being above the law.

“The takeaway for most Americans is the simple fact that there now appears to be two standards in America: one for we, the people, and then a different standard for the politically connected. And it’s frustrating — if you’re Secretary Clinton, there seems to be a different standard than for anyone else with the same fact pattern.”

He added that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, and former IRS director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, also seemed to enjoy that double standard.

Later Wednesday afternoon, Attorney General announced that Clinton would not face criminal charges, following Comey’s recommendation.