I couldn’t have been the only person who thought that an indictment was coming last month when James Comey began reading the FBI’s verdict on its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. A number of her lies were exposed. While Hillary claims she never sent classified information, Comey stated that 110 emails in 52 email chains were deemed to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Hillary said she provided all her work related emails – while Comey said thousands were missing. Hillary said she thought using one device would be simpler, but she used multiple mobile devices to send and receive emails. And lastly, she claimed there were no security breaches, but Comey said it was possible (WikiLeaks demonstrates it probably was).And what did he conclude that with? “We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.” How does that make any sense? Because Hillary didn’t intend to break the law. How convenient.
Via TownhallAccording to former prosecutor and House Oversight Committee member Trey Gowdy, who has seen the notes taken during an interview conducted by the FBI with Clinton about her private email servers, agents didn’t ask the former Secretary and current Democrat presidential nominee about intent at all.
“Remember James Comey said she was not indicted because he didn’t have sufficient evidence on the issue of intent? I didn’t see any questions on the issue of intent. There’s no question she handled them [classified emails] negligently or extremely carelessly, he said he didn’t go forward with charges specifically because he didn’t have criminal intent. I didn’t see any questions on that,” Gowdy said on Fox News Thursday morning.
How can the FBI prove or disprove intent if they never asked about it?Gowdy also argued the FBI interview notes should be released to the public. At this point the FBI is refusing to do so. It should also be noted the mishandling of classified information doesn’t require intent for prosecution.
In reference to the last point made in the bit quoted above, it’s 18 USC 793(f) which states that intent doesn’t matter when it comes to handling information relating to national security. Had the law applied to her, she would, as the law states, “be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Hillary Clinton complained in her speech at the DNC that the American legal system wasn’t applied equally to all Americans. No kidding.[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]