Friday, July 29, 2016

More Hillary Clinton Emails to Be Released

More Hillary Clinton Emails to Be Released, Despite Conclusion of Criminal Probe

ABC News Go

Jul 22, 2016, 5:02 PM EST

If you're like most Americans, you might think we'd seen the last of Hillary Clinton's email messages when the State Department said in February that it had made them all public.

Turns out there's many more.

Originally, Clinton said she turned over 55,000 pages of work-related emails to the State Department that she'd accumulated during her time as secretary of state and deleted 30,000 personal ones.

But when FBI Director James Comey announced earlier this month that no criminal charges would be brought against her, he also revealed that his investigators had recovered many of the missing emails, some of which were work-related, not personal.

And because the State Department is the rightful owner of Clinton's work-related emails, the FBI has started returning them to the State Department.

State Department spokesman Elizabeth Trudeau said the FBI turned over an "initial set" of those documents on Thursday.

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton, 2016

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

by Andrew C. McCarthy July 5, 2016 12:45 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton