So Why Would Comey Change Key Words in Statement re: Clinton

[Geaux4it]

From the link I posted in opening thread. Bold text added by me for emphasis

-Geaux

Section 793 of federal law states, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

That is one legal definition in that area. National defense, pull the reins. Read it Random statutes/Code sections are not even near trial.

I think I know, but your argument is?

-Geaux

 

[depotoo]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

seriously? this is the same person who changed "investigation" to "a matter".

he was hillaries bitch, simple.

I would call him the dems b#•€h.

 

[Peach]

The section in question is not appilicable to the matter in question, nor is Tort law where gross negligence finding gives rise to liability but no criminal aspect. Willful and wanton gets closer.

 

[Peach]

And the knee jerks across the road want to impeach Trump, tough. Nixon recorded himself advising fasification of evidence regarding criminal charges that had been concluded. No criminal charges for him, but the misconduct , never more than "unindicted co conspirater".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Geaux's question has been competently and correctly answered.

He is merely a sealion after that. Why Sealioning Is Bad

 

[Care4all]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

I think two things happened. The FBI couldn't or wouldn't prove intent on Hillary's part...portraying her to be foolish, rather than traitorous. The other was Lynch's announcement that Justice would abide by the FBI recommendations regarding charges. Remember FBI investigates, Justice prosecutes.

'Gross negligence' is harder to ignore.

the FBI are the ones who ALWAYS recommend charges based on their investigation to the Justice prosecutors working the legal case....the Justice dept goes with the FBI recommendation OR THEY CHOOSE not to based on other previous cases, or intent, or a number of things.....

IF you read the statute law for gross negligence under the Espionage Act, Clinton would have had to intentionally removed defense related, top secret documents from the govt's top secret holding place....

She never did that....the 4 email chains that are the only emails that are still not declassified and not released do have top secret info in them, but the allegedly top secret info came to her and staff from an outside public source, Syd Blumenthal, all others were released/declassified.

So, it would be hard or absolutely impossible to show she removed top secret info or documents, from it's proper place in govt servers of secured files.... because she didn't get the info from there.

the part of the statute on removing from the classified govt proper place, is the part of the law that requires and displays the subject's INTENT.

 

[iceberg]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

I think two things happened. The FBI couldn't or wouldn't prove intent on Hillary's part...portraying her to be foolish, rather than traitorous. The other was Lynch's announcement that Justice would abide by the FBI recommendations regarding charges. Remember FBI investigates, Justice prosecutes.

'Gross negligence' is harder to ignore.

and at a minimum what she was guilty of.

 

[Peach]

A conclusory allegation? We don't hold trials, the Constitution sets the stage there, personal interpretation of statutes/Codes on unrelated charges is not sanctioned.

 

[Peach]

There was no indictment; the Constitution does not allow convictions without Due Process, the Founders wrote a stunning document. Respect all its provisions. The 2nd Amendment is part but not superior, nor an inferior, section.

 

[JoeMoma]

There was no indictment; the Constitution does not allow convictions without Due Process, the Founders wrote a stunning document. Respect all its provisions. The 2nd Amendment is part but not superior, nor an inferior, section.

And since Comey laid out an excellent case for gross negligence before he said a reasonable prosecutor would not prosecute the case, reasonable people suspect that the fix was in.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was a draft, done before their final FBI interview for the investigation with Clinton.

Also, it says in the article gross negligence CAN be prosecuted, and NOT that it must be.....it all depends on the circumstance.

Petraeus was charged with gross negligence felony, he knowingly removed MARKED top SECRET CLASSIFIED information from its proper, protected holding place to an unsecured place and handed them over to his biography writer and mistress, and also lied 3 different times to the FBI.... And through a plea bargain down, he was only charged with a misdemeanor....

Comey testified that what Patreaus did was much much much worse than Clinton....

She and her actions, never came close to Patraeus wrong doings and he got a misdemeanor.....below a misdemeanor, there is simply NO CHARGE, and reprimand.

You are so brainwashed.
It's actually pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Actually, I'm using testimony before congress....

Testimony from someone who perjured himself.

Obviously you don't understand the definition of gross negligence.

I counter that it was criminal negligence. It was espionage. It was obstruction of justice. Everyone knew it. However, he was ordered not to recommend an indictment. So he didn't.

 

[Care4all]

It was a draft, done before their final FBI interview for the investigation with Clinton.

Also, it says in the article gross negligence CAN be prosecuted, and NOT that it must be.....it all depends on the circumstance.

Petraeus was charged with gross negligence felony, he knowingly removed MARKED top SECRET CLASSIFIED information from its proper, protected holding place to an unsecured place and handed them over to his biography writer and mistress, and also lied 3 different times to the FBI.... And through a plea bargain down, he was only charged with a misdemeanor....

Comey testified that what Patreaus did was much much much worse than Clinton....

She and her actions, never came close to Patraeus wrong doings and he got a misdemeanor.....below a misdemeanor, there is simply NO CHARGE, and reprimand.

You are so brainwashed.
It's actually pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Actually, I'm using testimony before congress....

Testimony from someone who perjured himself.

Obviously you don't understand the definition of gross negligence.

I counter that it was criminal negligence. It was espionage. It was obstruction of justice. Everyone knew it. However, he was ordered not to recommend an indictment. So he didn't.

Did he recommend an indictment in his first draft? NO

Why not?

His first draft was done a month or more before Bill met with Lynch,

AND it was announced in the newspapers in Early may that the FBI had finished all of their interviews but the final one, with Clinton and that the FBI had found no evidence that they could prosecute her for anything....

THIS WAS IN THE NEWS over a month BEFORE the by happenstance meet up between Bill and Lynch....

So I call BULL CRAP on your and the right wing mantra that that some deal was made with lynch at the Bill Clinton/ Lynch tarmac meet up.

The DECISION HAD ALREADY been made, and reported on, over a month earlier. There is a thread on this site, where the announcement of not charging her was made by the press, early May 2016.

 

[OldLady]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

That's what happens when you write a rough draft. You change stuff.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was a draft, done before their final FBI interview for the investigation with Clinton.

Also, it says in the article gross negligence CAN be prosecuted, and NOT that it must be.....it all depends on the circumstance.

Petraeus was charged with gross negligence felony, he knowingly removed MARKED top SECRET CLASSIFIED information from its proper, protected holding place to an unsecured place and handed them over to his biography writer and mistress, and also lied 3 different times to the FBI.... And through a plea bargain down, he was only charged with a misdemeanor....

Comey testified that what Patreaus did was much much much worse than Clinton....

She and her actions, never came close to Patraeus wrong doings and he got a misdemeanor.....below a misdemeanor, there is simply NO CHARGE, and reprimand.

You are so brainwashed.
It's actually pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Actually, I'm using testimony before congress....

Testimony from someone who perjured himself.

Obviously you don't understand the definition of gross negligence.

I counter that it was criminal negligence. It was espionage. It was obstruction of justice. Everyone knew it. However, he was ordered not to recommend an indictment. So he didn't.

Did he recommend an indictment in his first draft? NO

Why not?

His first draft was done a month or more before bill met with lynch,

AND it was announced in the newspapers in Early may that the FBI had finished all of their interviews but the final one, with Clinton and that the FBI had found no evidence that they could prosecute her for anything....

THIS WAS IN THE NEWS over a month BEFORE the by happenstance meet up between Bill and Lynch....

so I call BULL CRAP on your and the right wing mantra that that some deal was made with lynch at the Bill clinton Lynch tarmac meet up.

the DECISION HAD ALREADY been made, and reported on, over a month earlier. there is a thread on this site, where the announcement of not charging her was made by the press, early May 2016.

Like I said.... totally brainwashed.

Honestly, you are so silly.

First question is why was he giving the speech not to indict in the first place. He never should have done that. Secondly, he produced enough evidence for an indictment but decided not to......because he admitted the AG would never press charges under a little thing called prosecutorial discretion.

It was simply a dog and pony show meant to exonerate Hillary during an election. She was guilty as shit, but nobody was gonna press charges against her on anything. THIS is why the woman lost the election. It didn't pass the smell test.
Bill & Hillary = Harvey Weinstein in a pantsuit.

 

[The Original Tree]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

Obama + Loretta Lynch + Corrupt Comey + Cover Up = Legacy + Mueller!

 

[The Original Tree]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

That's what happens when you write a rough draft. You change stuff.

He tried to exonerate her two months before he interviewed anyone.


He granted the entire Clinton staff immunity.

After preparing his exoneration statement a full two months before interviewing anyone, and granting the entire group to be interviewed immunity, he then interviewed each person and MADE NO NOTES AND NOT ONE RECORDING of ANY OF THE INTERVIEWS!

Even afterwards his original statement to America clearly showed INTENT, Gross Negligence, and held Clinton Legally Liable for Criminal Violations of The Espionage Act, yet he STILL WAS GOING TO EXONERATE HER, despite her crimes!

My guess he was pressured again by Lynch to change his statement.
And being that he did so much already to cover up for Clinton and Obama, it was no big thing to ask Comey to knuckle under one more time.

 

[SeaGal]

the FBI are the ones who ALWAYS recommend charges based on their investigation to the Justice prosecutors working the legal case....the Justice dept goes with the FBI recommendation OR THEY CHOOSE not to based on other previous cases, or intent, or a number of things......

Ummm - so I said. Although the FBI doesn't always recommend charges be filed...sometimes they recommend no charges, as in this case. Lynch announced before the investigation was officially concluded that she would abide by the FBI recommendations re: charges.

IF you read the statute law for gross negligence under the Espionage Act, Clinton would have had to intentionally removed defense related, top secret documents from the govt's top secret holding place....

Intent is a strawman - the question remains, did her actions violate 18 U.S. Code § 793, Section f...as follows -

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Now you can certainly make the argument that she didn't know any better...but even Comey admits she should have.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Comey's decision to not recommend charges is still controversial in legal circles. The one irrefutable piece of evidence to come out of the FBI investigation - in no way is Hillary competent to hold high office.

 

[jc456]

It was a draft, done before their final FBI interview for the investigation with Clinton.

Also, it says in the article gross negligence CAN be prosecuted, and NOT that it must be.....it all depends on the circumstance.

Petraeus was charged with gross negligence felony, he knowingly removed MARKED top SECRET CLASSIFIED information from its proper, protected holding place to an unsecured place and handed them over to his biography writer and mistress, and also lied 3 different times to the FBI.... And through a plea bargain down, he was only charged with a misdemeanor....

Comey testified that what Patreaus did was much much much worse than Clinton....

She and her actions, never came close to Patraeus wrong doings and he got a misdemeanor.....below a misdemeanor, there is simply NO CHARGE, and reprimand.

and it went out for review and Lynch said, dude, you can't use that language because then we'd have to put her on trial, now change that now and be done with this.

Yep we understand why it was changed. gotcha.

 

[jc456]

1st draft, 2nd draft, 3rd. This is not a memo on lunch.T

Back to the question. Why did he change it? Evidently, all the evidence was in, and conclusions formed

-Geaux

It seems safe to assume you do not do any writing as part of your job. For those of us who do, we revise words often as we go through the drafts for a multitude of reasons. Doing so is not out of the norm, it is in fact what one is taught to do. You are trying way too hard here and just showing your own ignorance.

Gross negligence vs extreme carelessness have different legal implications. If Comey really believed what he initially stated, what was his reasoning for changing it? Did anyone pressure him to make the change? I suspect we will find out once he is brought back for questioning under oath. This is similar to the other 'change' he was instructed to make when he initially called the issue an 'Investigation', but was instructed to change the wording to 'matter' by Lynch

-Geaux

One thing a person who does any sort of writing learns very early on, never put in print what you cannot prove. Perhaps he knew/felt he did not have the evidence to prove the former so he went with the latter. I put out a simple weekly Crop Progress report and even in that I reword it multiple times to make sure I can support every statement in it.

Technical. Appelate briefs are revised multiple times, I revise less than my former partner.

especially after your boss says to change it.

 

[depotoo]

He didn’t put national security at risk.

And the knee jerks across the road want to impeach Trump, tough. Nixon recorded himself advising fasification of evidence regarding criminal charges that had been concluded. No criminal charges for him, but the misconduct , never more than "unindicted co conspirater".