PDA

View Full Version : FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of



Peter1469
02-21-2019, 09:27 AM
FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it (https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was)

He probably wasn't the only one. Comey's announcement where he didn't recommend going forward laid out a prima facia case to prosecute.



For most of the past three years, the FBI has tried to portray its top leadership as united behind ex-Director James Comey (https://thehill.com/people/james-comey)’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton (https://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) for transmitting classified information over her insecure, private email server (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?utm_term=.df65a332afce).Al though in the end that may have been the case, we now are learning that Comey’s top lawyer, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it “pretty late in the process.”


The revelation is contained in testimony Baker gave to House investigators last year. His testimony has not been publicly released, but I was permitted to review a transcript.


During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (https://thehill.com/people/john-ratcliffe) (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.


“I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.


Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.”


He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was changed:


“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

However, intent is not required for one specific violation of the Espionage Act....

ripmeister
02-21-2019, 09:39 AM
FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it (https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was)

He probably wasn't the only one. Comey's announcement where he didn't recommend going forward laid out a prima facia case to prosecute.




However, intent is not required for one specific violation of the Espionage Act....
You think there is something nefarious here? Its sounds like the guy thought one thing and then on further analysis changed his mind.

hanger4
02-21-2019, 09:40 AM
Back to that "intent" BS. "gross negligence" does not now nor ever has required "intent"

Peter1469
02-21-2019, 09:41 AM
You think there is something nefarious here? Its sounds like the guy thought one thing and then on further analysis changed his mind.
His reason for changing his mind is contrary to what the law says.

Lummy
02-21-2019, 09:42 AM
However, intent is not required for one specific violation of the Espionage Act....


So a personal history or career of espionage requires that intent be shown.

DGUtley
02-21-2019, 09:47 AM
I will go to my grave believing that the fix was in here just like I will go to my grave believing that Obama knew about and approved of the IRS Scandal.

hanger4
02-21-2019, 09:51 AM
I will go to my grave believing that the fix was in here just like I will go to my grave believing that Obama knew about and approved of the IRS Scandal.And there is no doubt Obama knew about HRC's private email server.

Peter1469
02-21-2019, 10:12 AM
So a personal history or career of espionage requires that intent be shown.

Under the Espionage Act there are several crimes. One, Mishandling of Classified Info, does not require intent. Other crimes under the Act do require intent.

MisterVeritis
02-21-2019, 10:13 AM
I will go to my grave believing that the fix was in here just like I will go to my grave believing that Obama knew about and approved of the IRS Scandal.
Don't rush off.

ripmeister
02-21-2019, 10:35 AM
His reason for changing his mind is contrary to what the law says.

I don't understand your point. The quote from him simply said he didn't think they could meet the reasonable doubt standard. Don't prosecutors every day not pursue an indictment because they can't meet that standard?

MisterVeritis
02-21-2019, 10:39 AM
I don't understand your point. The quote from him simply said he didn't think they could meet the reasonable doubt standard. Don't prosecutors every day not pursue an indictment because they can't meet that standard?
Reasonable doubt?

Peter1469
02-21-2019, 10:41 AM
I don't understand your point. The quote from him simply said he didn't think they could meet the reasonable doubt standard. Don't prosecutors every day not pursue an indictment because they can't meet that standard?

This is the quote:


“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”
He said he didn't think that they could prove intent.

Intent is not an element in a violation of 18 USC 793(f). Gross negligence, however is an element.

The Xl
02-21-2019, 10:58 AM
Hillary is openly above the law

Lummy
02-21-2019, 12:12 PM
Hillary is openly above the law

No, she is not. Just about the entire top crust of the democrat party is outlaw, in fact.

I'm sure nobody here will sleep at night until she, Obama and other democrat outlaws are behind bars. Right?

Tahuyaman
02-21-2019, 12:15 PM
FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it (https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was)

He probably wasn't the only one. Comey's announcement where he didn't recommend going forward laid out a prima facia case to prosecute.
However, intent is not required for one specific violation of the Espionage Act....

This guy must be unreasonable. After all Comey told us no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Mrs Clinton.

Tahuyaman
02-21-2019, 12:17 PM
Hillary is openly above the law
She is. There's just too much documented criminal activity to oppose that conclusion. I've been saying that for years now.

Peter1469
02-21-2019, 04:37 PM
This guy must be unreasonable. After all Comey told us no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Mrs Clinton.

I was a prosecutor and military magistrate. I would have brought those charges.

Nowhere Man
02-21-2019, 11:38 PM
I was a prosecutor and military magistrate. I would have brought those charges.

There is no doubt in my mind if I had handled documents in the manner she did using unsecured servers, I would be in jail for a very long time.... (in fact I had to put a signature to my understanding of that specific fact)