Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

No doubt 4 more years!!!

 

No way to prove intent. She didn't confess and her staff stayed on her side. The system, as any Trump supporter should know well, is weighted in favor of the accused. Out of the 30K e-mails examined, only three were found with partial makings, a (C) or a (c) preceding the classified material. She explained that away with I must have missed that, or considered it part of a copied document's organization. No e-mail was discovered to have clear markings of Confidential, Secret or Top Secret.

 

Could be almost anything. The House Judiciary Committee was on its way to following up the obstruction of justice charges suggested in the Mueller Report, until the Ukrainian quid pro quo came up. So...it could be back to that. However, there are a lot of court cases in work, including three coming up at the Supreme Court related to "Trump issues." So, my guess is a refusal to obey a court order.

 

Why do you think Obama intervened? I have no desire to spend an hour watching the 60 Minutes interview. I will, however, scan a transcript, if you can tell me approximately what he said on this issue. There are different types of gross negligence...presumably you are talking about criminal gross negligence associated with classified material...which requires "willful action" - i.e. intent.

 

Jacoby herself admitted that she briefed Obama on the dossier. The White House log confirms her meeting with Obama.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/251897/obama-steele-dossier-russiagate

[In contrast to the FBI, according to Jacoby, the CIA “hopped to and immediately worked to verify it.
By August 2016 the CIA had verified the key finding of the dossier to the point that, as The Washington Post revealed, it was “having ‘eyes only’ top secret meetings with Obama about it.”]

So which function did Jacoby serve when she talked to Obama about it?

A. Jacoby was a government employee
B. Jacoby was a political operative

Since Jacoby has never worked for the government, there is only one answer left....

 

Because he wanted a certain outcome...ah now there is different types of gross negligence...so tell...for link? How are juries and suppose Ronnie what type?

ah and manslaughter is a crime.

 

No they weren’t...the mueller report was DOA, especially after Mueller testimony

 

That is an issue of style and I agree with you about that.

 

There was no obstruction of justice charge brought and there won't be one now, that's long gone. Muellers report fell with one big thud.

 

Gross negligence doesn't require intent however she purposely had her official emails stored on an unsecured server where she intended. Markings don't matter.

 

BTW the Judge sentenced Stone within the revised sentencing guidelines NOT the abusive reccommendation of the original prosecutors who should be fired. Perhaps these judges who are all sitting with egg on their faces should consider the same.

 

Comey did say at his press conference that he did not find intent, but what he did not say was that 18 U.S. Code § 793 does not require intent. To be guilty requires only "gross negligence," a phrase that he adroitly and deceptively changed (at Strzok's suggestion) to "extreme carelessness" to imply that Hillary's felony was not really a felony. He spent no time explaining the difference between the two phrases. He also said that people are hardly ever indicted for violating this part of the espionage act. One, he was wrong (although just a little): there had been a woman indicted and sentenced about a year earlier and there was a sailor then currently at trial. But, secondly, he was mostly deceptive: he was technically correct in that very few people are actually indicted for violating 18 U.S. Code § 793 because the vast majority accused plead their case out without getting indicted.

Yes Hillary was interviewed late in the process, in fact just a few days before Comey announced his decision which meant at least a few days after he made his decision. It is very odd and unique that the FBI not question a suspect early on and quite extensively under FBI practices. She was not questioned ala FBI standards but simply "interviewed" and with the luxury of having her aides and attorneys present.

The Democrats lambasted Comey when he announced that he had uncovered more mishandled potentially confidential emails just a few days before the election. But they ignored two salient realities: One Comey was legally obligated to report the new emails because he had earlier testified under oath to congress that he was certain that there were no more emails. Two he gave Hillary a tremendous humongous election boost by not indicting her for a felony she prima facie committed.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath for the trial.

 

No doubt the Clinton people were looking for scapegoats after an election loss she was suppose to win in a landslide. She didn't have the brightest campaign manager, who spent huge amounts of money ineffectively, an idiot husband who should have known better regarding the meeting with Lynch, a bout of pneumonia in the closing days of the campaign, a failure to turn-out the African-American vote in key states, etc., etc. Not to forget, the outsider Bernie Sanders challenge and the Russian help for Trump.
But, Comey was right. He was forced into his earlier announcement by Lynch's decision to "semi-recuse" herself. That put him in the hot seat for the Republican led Congressional Committee's, in a place wherein Lynch would have normally been. Putting him there led to his commitment to the Committee to update them with any subsequent changes...leading to the "laptop fiasco." However, the FBI did manage to determine that the laptop did nothing to change their original recommendation, roughly two days before the election...when most minds were already made up.
It's impossible to tell which factor was "decisive" in hr election loss. To do that you'd have to understand what was in the mind of each voter. And, we just disagree with your interpretation of "gross negligence," which I believe requires proof of intent...via willfulness or conscious awareness that a law is being broken. A degree of reckless indifference amounting to intent.

 

Oh the Obama administration covered it up for her, she should be sitting in jail.

 

You are correct that there were MANY things that could be singled-out for the "reason" for Clinton's Loss.

But, given how excruciatingly close the election was in the 3 Key Rust Belt States, and taking into account a "slippage" in Clinton's Poll Numbers (after the Comey Letter) that her poll numbers never recovered from...

...A Very "Legitimate Case" can be made that Comey's Letter tipped the Election to Trump.

 

She did exactly what she "intended", she kept her official emails on a private unsecured unapproved server and that was an act of gross negligence. But intent does not even come into play. If I an intelligence analyst accidentally take classified documents with me and accidentally leave them sitting on the table at McDonald's at lunch and they accidentally fall into foreign hands I have committed a crime even though I never intended any classified documents to fall into foreign hands.

 

Did she "intend" to keep all her officials emails on an unsecured unauthorized server?

 

You could also make a "legitimate case" that the African-American vote in those three States did not turn-out as expected, particularly in Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia. Trump won those three States by a combined majority of just under 90,000.

 

The relevant statute 18 US Code § 793 has sections a) through f) describing different scenarios. Sections a) through e) contain the word intent or a similar phrase such as " willfully communicates, delivers, transmits ........." Section f) which describes mishandling has only "gross negligence" as the criteria for violation. A person does not have to intend nor do they even have to be aware that they are committing a felony.

The sailor was prosecuted for simply taking photographs inside a submarine that he thought he would send his family. Hillary mishandled Confidential material all the time and all over the place.

 

Good point, a lot of people were very uncomfortable with the clear coverup

 

I believe you'll find that the way the photographer was caught was that he threw his camera away. Someone discovered it and it wound up with Naval intelligence, which traced it to him. That act indicated that he was "aware" of his transgression and had attempted to cover it up. And, I believe he admitted that he was breaking the law. Clinton, on the other hand, while stating that she was aware of the handling of classified material, never admitted that she was aware of having done so. And, regarding (f) in paragraph 793, gross negligence itself is negligence so severe that it implies intent...in reckless disregard. I think it's a debatable difference, but like Comey, most would agree that it would be difficult to prosecute and NOT rise to the federal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

Did they have the "EMERGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!" meeting yet? If not then what makes it an emergency? What do they plan to accomplish with this meeting? More "orange man bad" stuff form a bunch of liberal judges? Be still my heart.

 

Gross negligence is negligence so severe that it implies gross stupidity, not intent. If the law wanted intent or willingness to apply it would say so. It does not. Intent has no relevance or bearing on 793 (f). Comey talked about lack of intent simply to deflect everyone from complaining about his giving Hillary a get out of jail free card for political purposes. You are correct that gross negligence is very hard to prove in a court which is why prosecutors almost always get a plea bargain out of the suspect.

 

Which involves an admission of guilt. Per Comey...that wasn't going to happen with Clinton.