FBI and Clinton’s Intent — What Difference Does It Make?

Bayard & Holmes

~ Piper Bayard

FBI Director James Comey basically said this week that Clinton was negligent with top secret, classified, and confidential information, but she did not “intend” to commit any crimes, so they recommend letting her off.

How can this be? Other than the fact that this is the Obama administration, and he’s not going to let the FBI or the Clinton’s good friend Loretta Lynch destroy the Democratic Party by indicting their candidate?

Much of the Espionage Act spells out intent to hurt the US or aid a foreign power as an element of a crime. In other words, the criminal had to WANT to hurt the US or aid a foreign power. If the prosecutor cannot prove that was the purpose of the violation, then there technically was no violation. The person is not guilty if the US was hurt by accident, or a foreign power was helped by accident.

For example, Bradley (Brianna) Manning intended to hurt the US by releasing classified information to the public and our enemies. Edward Snowden intended to release classified information to the public and to our enemies that would hurt the US and/or aid foreign countries. Edward Lin was caught red handed selling top secret information to China.

The FBI says that while Clinton did almost without doubt release top secret, classified, and confidential information to our enemies, the FBI believes her that she did not “intend” to hurt the US or aid a foreign country. The FBI said that because it believes her more-than-careless security practices were not INTENDED to hurt the US and/or help our enemies, the fact that they DID result in our enemies having access to our top secrets is irrelevant.

Note that I said “much of the Espionage Act.”

The FBI is ignoring 18 US Code Sec. 793 (e), (f), however, which has specifically different language . . . Those subsections say that a crime has been committed if a person acted “with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, Note: “reason to believe” and “is to be used.”

Other laws regarding the handling of classified information hold a violation at the standard of “gross negligence.” It is no stretch that Comey’s description of “extreme carelessness” and “negligence” could be considered “gross negligence.”

Under that standard, it is preposterous to argue that a woman who was First Lady for 8 years, senator for 8 years, and thoroughly briefed on security before entering the office of Secy of State did not have reason to believe that anyone able to tap into her server could use the information to injure the US or to the advantage of a foreign nation.

So the FBI is ignoring subsections (e) and (f) of the Espionage Act and hanging its hat on this . . . Did Clinton INTEND for our enemies to glean that information from her unsecured server to use against the US or for their own benefit? That is an answer we will never know, but considering all of the Chinese, Middle Eastern, and other foreign money backing the Clintons, anything is possible.

I have said this once before . . . Clinton was First Lady for 8 years. She was a senator for 8 years. She received a thorough briefing on security measures before she became Secy of State. After all of that experience and all of those instructions, she still CHOSE to flagrantly violate those security measures to play Hide the Shell with top secret and classified emails, thus almost certainly dessiminating our top secret information to our enemies.

There are only two possibilities . . .

She is either a ruthless criminal, or she is too stupid to be president.

Meme 2016 Hillary Laws Are For The Peasants

And if you’re thinking that you can do what Clinton did if you are also entrusted with State secrets, think again . . . Comey made it clear that similar circumstances could still result in an indictment for anyone else.

Advertisements

10 comments on “FBI and Clinton’s Intent — What Difference Does It Make?

  1. robakers says:

    I have been wondering if she signed any documents for the State Department about how to handle secrets. If she did then not knowing the rules wouldn’t matter. I loth to agree with Trump, but he is right. The fix was in.

    My question for you guys is what happens when Russia dumps all 50,000 emails on CNN three days before the election?

    rob

  2. lynnkelleyauthor says:

    Excellent post. Thank you, Piper.

  3. Doc' & CJ says:

    The “fix” is always in and everybody knows it. I think the real problem in this country is that nobody cares enough to do anything about it.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      I don’t always agree with you, but this is one of those times that I do. It’s difficult to get most Americans to pay attention to their country sliding into 3rd World corruption as long as people can get in their cars and go get stuff at Walmart.

  4. nw1887 says:

    I think it is somewhat far-fetched to contend that the Chinese and wherever-else-it’s-from money that Clinton has received plays into this. More or less every presidential candidate is extremely dependent on big-money donations into Super-PACs, since as we all know money talks in US elections. That money comes from everywhere.

    I actually think it was absolute carelessness coupled with complacency in her role as First Lady, senator and SoS which led to this. I would say she is unfit to be president, but hey, the other option makes her seem like a beacon of light sent straight from heaven – regardless of the utter idiocy of her actions.

    I may be roasted for this but the U.S. political system lacks plurality – the choice you are presented with is either a far-right wing party, or a moderately right-wing party. It does not surprise me that such high percentages of the population are apathetic to the political process – I would not feel comfortable voting for either one.

    • Piper Bayard says:

      Some candidates garner more foreign money than others. Bernie was doing a great job at grass roots fundraising from among the public. Hillary gets her money from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries whose interests align with hers. Of course foreign countries would not give her money without expecting something for it in return.

      As for anyone feeling comfortable about their vote . . . I don’t think “comfort” is playing a big part in this election.

  5. What you worry is that not enough are listening. Incredible.

  6. tedhenkle says:

    Regarding anyone else attempting to circumvent security protocols, remember: “…some animals are more equal than others.”

Talk to us. We talk back.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s