^ Shoudve ended the questioning right there. Makes Clinton look terrible and gets much of the information desired. But they didn't.

 

Rep. Chaffetz proceeded to suggest invasions of attorney-client privilege and prosecuting attorneys who were unknowingly handed classified records. He yelled at Director Comey for a while and completely lost focus.

 

Making this about the director and not about Sec. Clinton was pointless on his part and prolonged the whole affair when the media could have been hammering on other things.

 

Why is everyone in Congress so awful?

^ Shoudve ended the questioning right there. Makes Clinton look terrible and gets much of the information desired. But they didn't.

 

Rep. Chaffetz proceeded to suggest invasions of attorney-client privilege and prosecuting attorneys who were unknowingly handed classified records. He yelled at Director Comey for a while and completely lost focus.

 

Making this about the director and not about Sec. Clinton was pointless on his part and prolonged the whole affair when the media could have been hammering on other things.

 

Why is everyone in Congress so awful?

 

Chaffetz doesn't come off well.

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.

 

Don't think it's illegal to lie to state or local law enforcement. Feds are different, i think.

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.

 

I think I'd vote for Gowdy for President right now. My opinion might change, but i like him.

I'm still trying to figure out how deleting evidence and lying under oath doesn't show intent.

 

I am with you on this. As an average person Comey referred to before, I would say her intent is pretty clear. Is it also clear legally? I will have to defer.

 

A Congresswoman read the statute aloud. It has nothing about intent in it. Comey is the one that keeps inserting intent into it.

 

That is interesting.

 

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

 

I will not. She is done, as far as I am concerned regarding political office or any job requiring integrity, and the protection of classified information.

 

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

 

Sure seems like it does to me. If you are doing it to a LEO, then anything you say and do can be used against you in a court of law.

 

Re Gowdy: He laid it out pretty plainly. I do not know how anyone can support HRC as a candidate for high office.

Here's a little twist to think about:

 

What if...the meeting with Lynch and Billy Boy was allowed to happen so it would be leaked.

 

What if...the interview of Hillary on July 4 was absolutely intentional and not a convenience issue for her.

 

What if...Comey set the facts of the investigation up on a tee, and chose to not file.

 

What if...Lynch closed this thing immediately, on the same day that POTUS had Hillary on AF1.

 

What if...Trey Gowdy's questions to Comey were so direct they helped the average citizen gain insight.

 

What if....this whole thing was a massive chess game that the Clinton's thought they had won...only to realize that checkmate is the ultimate finish ?

 

What if... I'm right and not a conspiracy theorist ?

I wonder how many people will be using this defense for speeding tickets?

Driver: "Officer, I didn't intend to go 80mph"

Officer: "OK then, you are free to go"

 

You know this is going to play out all over the country at traffic stops, during arrest and in court rooms.

 

Nah. That don't work.

How is it possible for Comey to determine Hillary Clinton didn't lie to FBI without looking at the other sworn or public statements she made? This is just standard procedure for prosecutors.

She didn't lie to him in that particular interview. In other words, she admitted to all that she was accused of except intent to commit espionage. Therefore, she said, "Yes, I did that" to virtually everything he asked about.

 

The fact she denied all of that to the American public and congress prior to her interview with Comey does not figure into the question of whether she lied to the FBI.

The bottom line on all this for Republicans is they should be ecstatic with this outcome. It's perfect.

 

With no indictment and the evidence presented it feeds the mentality that government is messed up and/or fixed. That is a perfect story line for Trump to use. If she were charged with anything that story loses value. There wouldn't have even been the Congressional hearing we just saw with Comey.

 

If there were charges leveled against Hillary, the Democrats would have seriously needed to consider replacing her as candidate. Virtually any other Democratic candidate beats Trump with no problem. With this situation and Hillary, the Republicans and Trump could not have dreamed of a better candidate to run against.

 

It's perfect. In fact, it is so perfect I am surprised the Democratic conspiracy theorists, if there are any, haven't already concocted a story about how Comey strategized with his Republican friends on what would be the best way to get Hillary and came up with this approach.

A full day since my post above and no comments? Is that implicit agreement from Republican posters that this is the perfect outcome? Or is it further proof that there is a conspiracy by Republicans with Comey? Or both?

A full day since my post above and no comments? Is that implicit agreement from Republican posters that this is the perfect outcome? Or is it further proof that there is a conspiracy by Republicans with Comey? Or both?

 

All her not having charges brought against her is to further propagate the feeling that there are two sets of rules. Rules for the elite versus rules for the average guys and gals like us.

The bottom line on all this for Republicans is they should be ecstatic with this outcome. It's perfect.

 

With no indictment and the evidence presented it feeds the mentality that government is messed up and/or fixed. That is a perfect story line for Trump to use. If she were charged with anything that story loses value. There wouldn't have even been the Congressional hearing we just saw with Comey.

 

If there were charges leveled against Hillary, the Democrats would have seriously needed to consider replacing her as candidate. Virtually any other Democratic candidate beats Trump with no problem. With this situation and Hillary, the Republicans and Trump could not have dreamed of a better candidate to run against.

 

It's perfect. In fact, it is so perfect I am surprised the Democratic conspiracy theorists, if there are any, haven't already concocted a story about how Comey strategized with his Republican friends on what would be the best way to get Hillary and came up with this approach.

 

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Esp. your 3rd paragraph. To have been charged would have been the nail in the coffin of Hillary and would be a big problem for the Dem party. Trump ain't as easy to beat as you may think. That's why we still have elections, as the saying goes.

FBI wants you to contact them if you know of a public official using their office for private gain.

 

I think this is serious.

 

FBI: Call us if you know of a corrupt public official - Washington Times

 

LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - The FBI in New Mexico wants you to give them a call.

 

The agency wants anyone who suspects that a government official is using public office for private gain to call in a tip.

 

A spokesman says the FBI is conducting an outreach campaign in southern New Mexico that encourages people to report government corruption.

FBI wants you to contact them if you know of a public official using their office for private gain.

 

I think this is serious.

 

FBI: Call us if you know of a corrupt public official - Washington Times

 

LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - The FBI in New Mexico wants you to give them a call.

 

The agency wants anyone who suspects that a government official is using public office for private gain to call in a tip.

 

A spokesman says the FBI is conducting an outreach campaign in southern New Mexico that encourages people to report government corruption.

 

I'd like to report every single member of Congress....