If Comey was FBI chief, why did he let junior FBI members edit his memo

[WelfareQueen]

Intent is not required under the Law. Please keep up and get your facts straight.

DOJ disagrees with your assessment.

Nope it never went to DOJ....as you just said...Comey made the decision, not DOJ.

However, DOJ is currently investigating how the entire situation was handled and so is Congress. I do believe all the facts will eventually come out.

DOJ can pick up whatever case it wants to, FBI merely makes a RECOMMENDATION.

Nope....Comey said he made his decision independent of DOJ due to the lying piece of shit Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. DOJ did not make the decision not to prosecute...Comey and the FBI did.

Yes he did and DOJ concurred that no charges should be brought.

You nutters can go ape shit crazy about this Hillary email handling for the rest of your life for all I care, it’s never going anywhere.

Since you seem ignorant of some very basic facts her is a Washington Post link. Key quote:

Clinton and her daughter Chelsea Clinton exchanged emails after 8 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012, with Chelsea Clinton using the alias “Diane Reynolds.” Clinton invited her daughter to call, saying she is in the office late because of attacks on U.S. facilities in Egypt and Libya.


Apparently they did not speak, but Clinton delivered this news after 11 p.m.


“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow. Let's try again later.”


Clinton appears to be ascribing the attack to a terrorist group, although the Obama administration later described it as the result of a spontaneous protest. Families of some of the four Americans killed in Benghazi have previously complained that the Clinton emails appear to show her passing along information about the attacks that they claim was denied to them.


Latest State release: Clinton emails with Chelsea after Benghazi attacks and more

 

[JoeMoma]

I encourage everyone to read Comey's original draft versus the final statement. The fix was in...there is no question. This will need to be fully investigated and it now finally will be.

Comey’s original language:

No prosecutor would bring these charges - intent not provable.

Intent does not have to be proved..................pay attention kid

Here is a former prosecutor who has an excellent record of convictions that disagrees about intent not being provable.

 

[The Professor]

I encourage everyone to read Comey's original draft versus the final statement. The fix was in...there is no question. This will need to be fully investigated and it now finally will be.

Comey’s original language:

No prosecutor would bring these charges - intent not provable.

Those words prove the fix was in. Contrary to what Comey the weasel said, prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to pursue charges because it is impossible to lose the case. Also contrary to what Comey the back-stabber says, intent is not an element of the crime. I know that and so do many other USMB posters. If we know it, then Comey the slithering snake knew it, too. The crime is gross negligence in the handling of classified information. That is all that must be proved and that has already been established beyond the possibility of rational debate.

There are other crimes, of course, such as deleting Emails that were subpoenaed, but that is another matter for another time.

Everything about Hillary Clinton stinks like a decomposing skunk. If the government seriously pursues charges against her she is toast.

I'll tell you what I would like to see: Hillary Clinton pleads guilty and in exchange she agrees never to work in any position that involves the handling of classified information. That would keep her away from the one job that has been her obsession: President of the U.S.A.

 

[AntonToo]

I encourage everyone to read Comey's original draft versus the final statement. The fix was in...there is no question. This will need to be fully investigated and it now finally will be.

Comey’s original language:

No prosecutor would bring these charges - intent not provable.

Those words prove the fix was in. Contrary to what Comey the weasel said, prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to pursue charges because it is impossible to lose the case. Also contrary to what Comey the back-stabber says, intent is not an element of the crime. I know that and so do many other USMB posters. If we know it, then Comey the slithering snake knew it, too. The crime is gross negligence in the handling of classified information. That is all that must be proved and that has already been established beyond the possibility of rational debate.

There are other crimes, of course, such as deleting Emails that were subpoenaed, but that is another matter for another time.

Everything about Hillary Clinton stinks like a decomposing skunk. If the government seriously pursues charges against her she is toast.

I'll tell you what I would like to see: Hillary Clinton pleads guilty and in exchange she agrees never to work in any position that involves the handling of classified information. That would keep her away from the one job that has been her obsession: President of the U.S.A.

No it does not show the fix was in, on the contrary it shows even application of justice. To bring charges without evidence or even suspicion of ill intent would be SPECIAL treatment.

Nobody cares about your feelings about Clinton and what you would like to see.

 

[The Professor]

I encourage everyone to read Comey's original draft versus the final statement. The fix was in...there is no question. This will need to be fully investigated and it now finally will be.

Comey’s original language:

No prosecutor would bring these charges - intent not provable.

Those words prove the fix was in. Contrary to what Comey the weasel said, prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to pursue charges because it is impossible to lose the case. Also contrary to what Comey the back-stabber says, intent is not an element of the crime. I know that and so do many other USMB posters. If we know it, then Comey the slithering snake knew it, too. The crime is gross negligence in the handling of classified information. That is all that must be proved and that has already been established beyond the possibility of rational debate.

There are other crimes, of course, such as deleting Emails that were subpoenaed, but that is another matter for another time.

Everything about Hillary Clinton stinks like a decomposing skunk. If the government seriously pursues charges against her she is toast.

I'll tell you what I would like to see: Hillary Clinton pleads guilty and in exchange she agrees never to work in any position that involves the handling of classified information. That would keep her away from the one job that has been her obsession: President of the U.S.A.

No it does not show the fix was in, on the contrary it shows even application of justice. To bring charges without evidence or even suspicion of ill intent would be SPECIAL treatment.

Nobody cares about your feelings about Clinton and what you would like to see.

Intent is not an element of this crime. The only issue is this: Was she grossly negligent in the handling of classified information. The mere fact that she had this information on a private server which is easily hacked is proof of the crime. You have difficulty getting over the fact that intent is immaterial to prosecution for this offense.

I don't know where you got your law degree. I got mine from the University of Florida, so let me explain it to you on a very basis level: to convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime. In this particular offense, intent is not an element of the crime. Your contention that bringing charges "without evidence or even suspicion of ill intent would be SPECIAL treatment" is absurd and contrary to applicable law. You fail to see that regardless of Hillary's intent, the risk of classified information falling into the wrong hands was the same. The law required her to take reasonable measures to protect this information and this she failed to do. Anyone who doesn't understand the risk of putting classified information on an easily hacked private server is a damn fool. There is no doubt that she broke the law. You have the last word. I am done with you and all you Hillary Clinton defenders.

 

[AntonToo]

I encourage everyone to read Comey's original draft versus the final statement. The fix was in...there is no question. This will need to be fully investigated and it now finally will be.

Comey’s original language:

No prosecutor would bring these charges - intent not provable.

Those words prove the fix was in. Contrary to what Comey the weasel said, prosecutors would be chomping at the bit to pursue charges because it is impossible to lose the case. Also contrary to what Comey the back-stabber says, intent is not an element of the crime. I know that and so do many other USMB posters. If we know it, then Comey the slithering snake knew it, too. The crime is gross negligence in the handling of classified information. That is all that must be proved and that has already been established beyond the possibility of rational debate.

There are other crimes, of course, such as deleting Emails that were subpoenaed, but that is another matter for another time.

Everything about Hillary Clinton stinks like a decomposing skunk. If the government seriously pursues charges against her she is toast.

I'll tell you what I would like to see: Hillary Clinton pleads guilty and in exchange she agrees never to work in any position that involves the handling of classified information. That would keep her away from the one job that has been her obsession: President of the U.S.A.

No it does not show the fix was in, on the contrary it shows even application of justice. To bring charges without evidence or even suspicion of ill intent would be SPECIAL treatment.

Nobody cares about your feelings about Clinton and what you would like to see.

Intent is not an element of this crime. The only issue is this: Was she grossly negligent in the handling of classified information. The mere fact that she had this information on a private server which is easily hacked is proof of the crime. You have difficulty getting over the fact that intent is immaterial to prosecution for this offense.

I don't know where you got your law degree. I got mine from the University of Florida, so let me explain it to you on a very basis level: to convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime. In this particular offense, intent is not an element of the crime. Your contention that bringing charges "without evidence or even suspicion of ill intent would be SPECIAL treatment" is absurd and contrary to applicable law. You fail to see that regardless of Hillary's intent, the risk of classified information falling into the wrong hands was the same. The law required her to take reasonable measures to protect this information and this she failed to do. Anyone who doesn't understand the risk of putting classified information on an easily hacked private server is a damn fool. There is no doubt that she broke the law. You have the last word. I am done with you and all you Hillary Clinton defenders.

Put that penis away, Comey's is many times bigger.

Did you ever ACTUALLY practice criminal law? I'm going to say no.

There is always some flex between the words of law, their intent and how justice system sets standards around them.

There is not a single case where anyone was charged under these statutes without some deference to mens rea. This would be a VERY special case.