Will anyone dispute that her security clearance should be taken away?

 

At the very minimum, this should happen.

Comey stated that when Clinton was NOT under oath when interviewed . Thats just unreal to me . And he didnt set in on the interview nor ask any questions .

Comey was asked if she lied under oath, he said "Not to the FBI."

When asked about her lying under oath to Congress he said "they didn't look into that."

Asked "Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate that?"

Comey said, "Yes"

"You will have one within a few hours"

 

So it looks like her committing perjury and lying to congress will now be investigated...I would have thought the FBI would have already looked at that, but evidently they needed a Congressional request to look into that.

 

Technically, he's correct since the FBI questioning was NOT done under oath. That to me is incredible.

Are people ever placed under oath outside of a court or Congressional hearing? That doesn't mean you can say whatever you want to the police or federal law enforcement with no consequences.

Would lying (whether under oath or not) constitute interfering with a federal investigation?

Are people ever placed under oath outside of a court or Congressional hearing? That doesn't mean you can say whatever you want to the police or federal law enforcement with no consequences.

Correct, Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to prosecutors among other charges. I think that is why Comey was so careful to say that she didn't lie to the FBI, he prosecuted Stewart and knew that if he said HRC lied he would be hanging her and himself out to dry.

Would lying (whether under oath or not) constitute interfering with a federal investigation?

Ask Martha Stewart

I just got to the part of the hearing where Comey was asked if she was interviewed under oath. Congressman Mica said "That's problematic" and Comey interjected that "No, it's still a crime to lie to us." People are looking for bombshells that aren't there.

 

The Republicans on the committee have thus far been smart about this and gotten Comey to focus on what Clinton did for sound bytes. This is the first guy to indulge the conspiracy theories that Comey is in the bag for Clinton. It's just a really dumb strategy, especially with how professional and well-versed Comey has come off in this case.

Will anyone dispute that her security clearance should be taken away?

 

No reasonable person would.

Habib I appreciate your input and your smarts but you if you really think this has been about sound bites and " strategy " you must be a hard core , card carrying member of the democrat party ( and thats ok , just skip the I'm independent statements )

The longer it goes on the more he looks like he was just totally inept .

Or Willing .

If Hillary were charged, how many other people would also need to be charged?

 

Wouldn't every state department employee and government employee who traded messages with Hillary on that server also be guilty?

 

At the very least, every state department employee actively working for Hillary would have to be charged, wouldn't they?

 

Would the FBI also need to go back and investigate previous Secretaries of State who also used personal email and consider charges against them? (It is my understanding that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State who is not using personal email.)

Anyone who lied to the public could be charged , but a more acceptable penalty would be fired from working for the Fed Govt or having any access to classified doc's . I dont need Clinton charged , but i do think she shouldnt be an option to run for higher public office .

Regardless if you like Trey Gowdy or not, he does bring some heat in the transcript of his exchange with Comey today.....

 

 

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

 

A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.

 

Here's a transcript of the exchange:

 

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

 

Gowdy: It was not true?

 

Comey: That's what I said.

 

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

 

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

 

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

 

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

 

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

 

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

 

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

 

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

 

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

 

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

 

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

 

Comey: No.

 

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

 

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

 

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

 

Comey: That is right?

 

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

 

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

 

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

 

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

 

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

 

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

 

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

 

And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

 

You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

 

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

 

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

 

And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.