In regard to the Clinton investigation, he publicly announced the fact that he did not find evidence of a prosecutable crime and exonerated Hillary Clinton and in so doing laid out a clear case of guilt. Even the Democrats admitted this was improper as they resoundingly chimed in a chorus of calls for him to be fired at the time for this move. (They were not criticizing him for exonerating Clinton in the face of clear evidence of guilt, but rather they criticized the fact that it was not the role of the FBI director to announce publicly the facts and conclusions regarding an investigation). Nevertheless we both agree Comey’s actions were improper. It is not the role of the FBI director to conclude guilt or innocence. Rather, it is his role to gather the evidence and forward the same to a prosecutor or to present the facts to a grand jury for determination of whether there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime. In this case to find there was “extreme carelessness” when the legal standard of guilt is “gross negligence” is clearly to substitute his opinion for that of the judge and jury when there was obviously substantial evidence of guilt such that a jury should have decided the issues. It is not the FBI’s director to decide guilt or innocence, it is merely to gather the evidence and, if there is probably cause to believe there is a crime, to refer it to the Justice Department for determination of whether to prosecute. Comey’s job was not to determine whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what he in fact did.
The espionage Act, which is what Comey was evaluating, requires only “gross negligence” in handling of classified information. Comey laid out the facts of undisputed mishandling of classified information and determined that it was “extremely careless” but not “grossly negligent”. Any lawyer who deals with such issues regularly knows that in the law that carelessness is the same thing as negligence and further that “extreme carelessness” is the same thing as “gross negligence”. Gross negligence is just negligence or carelessness that is more than just and ordinary mistake but rather more extreme, i.e. extreme carelessness. In fact most lawyers would agree that “extreme negligence” is probably more severe than “gross negligence” not less so. On this statement alone, Comey was obligated to refer the case for prosecution but refused to do so, showing almost certainly a willful obstruction of Justice based on political bias.
Comey attempted to bolster his decision by claiming there was no evidence of intent to violate the espionage act and therefore there was no case. This statement alone is more evidence of incompetence or willful obstruction of justice. Intent is not an element of the crime. Gross negligence is a standard that does not require proof of intent. Negligence by definition is an act that is not necessarily done intentionally or with a bad motive but rather “extremely carelessly”. [1] The very reason the standard in the act is “gross negligence “ is so that prosecutors do not have to prove an intent to break the law, so that people mishandling government secrets can’t go free and unpunished simply by claiming it was an accident and not intentional. The standard is gross negligence or negligence that is so flagrant that an ordinary person would know that there could be bad consequences or that it could cause harm. In this case it would be obvious to an ordinary person that conducting business of the United States government on a private server instead of secure US government servers could lead to breaches of national security
Even so, contrary to Comey’s claim, there was substantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. Hillary chose to do, not just some, but all of her communicating as Secretary of State through a private e-mail server which she knowingly had set up in her home, contrary to the recommendations of the President and her own directives to her own staff at State. These recommendations were obviously to protect classified information from leaks. Then, after leaving office, she failed to deliver the government communications on her computer to the government for years and contrary to law, and even though she knew there was a congressional investigation into matters reflected in those records.
Later, it had been leaked through independent sources that Harvey Wiener, husband of Uma Abadan, Hillary’s closest aid, had substantial State Department e-mails including classified documents on his computer. It is now been verified that Abadan was regularly e-mailing documents including classified information to Wiener’s computer, according to her because she could more easily download them in hard copy at night for delivery to Hillary the next day. This was obviously a straight forward criminal violation of the Espionage Act.
Comey was forced to reopen the investigation of Clinton to “investigate” this bombshell disclosure. This was right before the election and the news was devastating to Clinton, but the quick turn around by Comey disclosing that the investigation showed nothing new and the issue was closed. Obviously, Comey’s action was not taken to harm Clinton, as Democrats now allege, but rather a whitewash was intended to close down the very harmful disclosure that Clinton’s closest aid was a security leak and possibly a foreign agent.
During this re-opened investigation, it was widely reported that Comey made an agreement with Clinton’s top aids for them to deliver their computers for examination for e-mails that might include classified information. Remember, since Clinton had been conducting all business through an unsecure server, sending and receiving e-mails including classified information, an examination of her aids’ computers may have shown how this classified information was getting into the system and where it ultimately was going, including to possibly unfriendly actors.
Astonishingly, rather than subpoena the computers, Comey agreed with the aids, through their lawyers, that if they voluntarily produced the computers, after examination he would destroy the computers and anything copied from them. Again, the function of law enforcement, including the FBI, is not to be judge and jury and then to destroy evidence; but rather to gather and preserve it for examination by the prosecutors or a grand jury who make the ultimate decision whether to prosecute or not. Subsequent disclosures have now shown that Comey had written his exoneration lspeech regarding Clinton before even the witnesses were interviewed. Text messages of the lead investigators show they knew the fix was in and there would never be a prosecution of Hillary regardless of the evidence. This action by Comey was clear obstruction of justice for which he should not only have been fired but also loose his license to practice law and be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
Incredibly this is not all of the incompetence and out right obstruction of justice by Comey. In the Russian hacking investigation, he clearly was obstructing justice as well. The basis of the Alleged Russian hacking is an evaluation of the computers at the DNC. Supposedly the DNC’s computer security firm, Crowd Strike discovered the Russian connection from their own evaluation of the computers. Crowd strike, in addition to being the DNC’s own security firm is heavily controlled by Alphabet, Inc, a/k/a Google, which is a staunch Hillary supporter and devoted Trump opponent. Any person charged with colluding with the Russians to meddle in the election by hacking the DNC would immediately attack the Crowd strike story as nothing more than a partisan sham.
When the DNC announced the Crowd Strike conclusions that the Russia’s did it, Comey has admitted in testimony and statements that he asked the DNC to produce the computers for an independent evaluation and that the DNC refused. The fact that the DNC refused raised the suspicion if not outright presumption that the DNC and Crowd Strike are lying. Comey failed to follow up with subpoena’s for the computers or in the alternative to reject the DNC’s claims without any firm proof. I’m not saying here that the Russian cold not in fact be the hacker, but with the DNC refusing to allow an independent examination of the records, suggests they are lying and the failure of the FBI to subpoena those records to force an independent examination, show either criminal negligence or active participation in a phony political which hunt against the political opposition.
But wait there is much, much more known facts about Comey’s lack of competence or political motivation contrary to the best interests of the American people. Comey oversaw the elimination of all FBI and other government materials mentioning Radical Islam as a source of domestic terror attacks, in conjunction with the Muslim Brotherhood, the father of terrorist activity world wide. On his watch multiple known terrorists carried out acts of terror While the FBI failed to take any action against them including any electronic surveillance through the FISA court. Meanwhile we now know Comey was participating in the illegal unmasking of millions of innocent Americans suspected of nothing other than being political opponents of the Obama administration. Essentially we now know Comey clogged up the available avenues of proper criminal investigation with illegal political surveillance of the innocent while criminals went un checked to carry out mass murder against the American people.
In fact, Comey was a part of the far-reaching Clinton political crime syndicate that he profited by and he was advanced by this association throughout his career. He was in all likelihood promoted to FBI director just as Hillary Clinton was leaving the State Department precisely to provide political cover for her and Clinton, Inc. and possibly the entire Obama administration’s criminal activity. But this is a far too lengthily discussion for this article. [2]
The bottom line is, we now know Comey was in the tank for Clinton and threw perhaps the biggest criminal investigation of the century and perhaps in US hoisotry for political reasons and was rightfully fired for it. Now, incredibly, his buddy, Robert Mueller, has been appointed to try to cover it up even further and ultimately oust Trump from the Presidency in the process.
-------------------------------
[1] The United States Supreme court considered the standard for awards of punitive damages in civil cases and discussed the difference between intentional conduct and “extremely careless conduct and “gross negligence in: Smith v. Wade, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 461 U.S. 30, 75 L. Ed.2d 632 (1983). The Court said:
“One fundamental distinction is essential to an understanding of the differences among the various standards for punitive damages. Many jurisdictions have required some sort of wrongful motive, actual intention to inflict harm or intentional doing of an act known to be unlawful--"express malice," "actual malice," "bad faith," "wilful wrong" or "ill will." Other states, however, have permitted punitive damage awards merely upon a showing of very careless or negligent conduct by the defendant--"gross negligence," "recklessness," or "extreme carelessness." In sharp contrast to the first set of terms noted above, which connote a requirement of actual ill will towards the plaintiff, these latter phrases import only a degree of negligence. This distinction between acts that are intentionally harmful and those that are very negligent, or unreasonable, involves a basic difference of kind, not just a variation of degree. W. Prosser, Torts § 34, at 185 (4th ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500, comment f (1965). The former typically demands inquiry into the actor's subjective motive and purpose, while the latter ordinarily requires only an objective determination of the relative risks and advantages accruing to society from particular behavior. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282.”
No comments:
Post a Comment