Comey says classified Clinton emails were forwarded to Anthony Weiner

[Right_in_Virginia]

Comey says classified Clinton emails were forwarded to Anthony Weiner
The Washington Post, May 3, 2017, Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian

Hillary Clinton emails containing classified information were forwarded to former congressman Anthony Weiner, the director of the FBI testified Wednesday as he defended his handling of politically sensitive probes surrounding the last year’s presidential race.

Under questioning from the senior Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), James B. Comey revealed more details about how Clinton’s emails ended up on Weiner’s computer.

Weiner, a New York Democrat, was married to a top aide to Clinton, Huma Abedin. Weiner was being investigated separately for possible inappropriate communications with a minor.

“Somehow, her emails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information,” Comey said, adding later, “His then-spouse Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him to print out for her so she could deliver them to the secretary of state.”

The two were investigated for possible mishandling of classified material, but the FBI ultimately dropped the matter without seeking charges because they could not show either of them intended to violate the law, Comey said.

“Really the central problem we had with the whole email investigation was proving people… had some sense they were doing something unlawful. That was our burden and we were unable to meet it,’’ he said.


More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-james-comey-begins-testimony-to-congress/2017/05/03/9e3244bc-3006-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html?utm_term=.b3521a58f472

[Oceander]

"“Really the central problem we had with the whole email investigation was proving people… had some sense they were doing something unlawful. That was our burden and we were unable to meet it,’’ he said."

That is so much B.S.  Intent can always be inferred from the facts and if it really was true that a prosecutor had to prove knowledge of doing something wrong, there would be precious few successful prosecutions.

These two had the requisite intent; the choice to not prosecute was political and the "investigation" was done to inoculate these two for political purposes.

[Night Hides Not]

Since when was uncertainty about intent a hindrance for prosecuting lawbreakers?

Unless it can be proven that I set my cruise control at a speed above the speed limit, there is no proof that I "intended" to violate the limit...right? It's more likely that I was observing traffic around me, and was unaware that my leadfoot kicked in.

 

[driftdiver]

That is so much B.S.  Intent can always be inferred from the facts and if it really was true that a prosecutor had to prove knowledge of doing something wrong, there would be precious few successful prosecutions.

These two had the requisite intent; the choice to not prosecute was political and the "investigation" was done to inoculate these two for political purposes.

When it comes to mishandling classified materials intent is one thing they don't have to prove.  It makes no difference.  All they have to prove is that you mishandled it.

[r9etb]

When it comes to mishandling classified materials intent is one thing they don't have to prove.  It makes no difference.  All they have to prove is that you mishandled it.

That's the case for people like you or me.  But the same rules don't apply to Our Betters.

[driftdiver]

That's the case for people like you or me.  But the same rules don't apply to Our Betters.

When I was in the Air Force I had my rights read to me 3 times for mistakes other people made.  They could have easily resulted in me going to jail.   Any one of those events was a fraction of the severity of what she has done.

[r9etb]

When I was in the Air Force I had my rights read to me 3 times for mistakes other people made.  They could have easily resulted in me going to jail.   Any one of those events was a fraction of the severity of what she has done.

You'll get no argument from me -- us little people would at the very least face a loss of clearance; and a pattern of abuse such as this would most likely result in criminal charges.

But it's long been obvious that some people are more equal than others.

[Oceander]

When it comes to mishandling classified materials intent is one thing they don't have to prove.  It makes no difference.  All they have to prove is that you mishandled it.

Some sort of state of mind is almost certainly required, but the existence of that state of mind can be inferred from the circumstances, so there doesn't have to be independent proof that somebody intended to mishandle classified information, just a set of facts from which a fact-finder could infer that state of mind.

[Right_in_Virginia]

“Really the central problem we had with the whole email investigation was proving people… had some sense they were doing something unlawful. That was our burden and we were unable to meet it,’’ he said.

Uneffingbelievable.  The SOS didn't know this was unlawful ..........

[Bigun]

When it comes to mishandling classified materials intent is one thing they don't have to prove.  It makes no difference.  All they have to prove is that you mishandled it.

Absolutely right!  Intent has no bearing what so ever!

[driftdiver]

Some sort of state of mind is almost certainly required, but the existence of that state of mind can be inferred from the circumstances, so there doesn't have to be independent proof that somebody intended to mishandle classified information, just a set of facts from which a fact-finder could infer that state of mind.

@Oceander
State of mind MAY be a factor in sentencing but in 99% of the cases I've saw in 10 years Active duty and about 10 years working around it as a civilian thats all it counts for.

Every single person with access to classified material receives training on the proper handling.   People at her level have to sign off that they attended the training but usually skip it.  EVERYONE at the lower levels has it.   Its very black and white, no gray area at all.  They tell you how to handle classified and they tell you what will happen if you mess up.   When stuff happens they do an investigation into what happened.   If it was a mistake they take that into consideration especially what the circumstances were.   If it is negligence they take a very different view.

For example; I was burning classified one time.  Spent about an hour in this little building throwing papers into the fire with another guy who was verifying each page went in.    Once we were done we walked out only to see small pieces of paper floating down from the sky.  The screen in the incinerator turned out to be broken and was allowing paper to be sucked up the chimney.    I spent a long time searching the nearby roofs and blast revetments for small pieces of paper but didn't get into trouble.

Another time a coworker accidentally threw a very important item out with his lunchbox.    After about 10 people spent 8 hours searching through stacks of garbage for the entire base he ended up leaving the Air Force early.

Did he intend to throw it out with his lunch?   No, but he certainly paid the price and was quite lucky his coworkers didn't throw him down a deep hole.  We had a really cool one btw, had a huge fan blade at the bottom.

[DiogenesLamp]

By all rights,  Hillary should have gone to jail for setting up that email server intending to get around the Freedom of Information act.   



And for Whitewater.   And for Cattle Futures.  And for Filegate.  And for Travelgate.  And for lying to a Federal Judge and creating false documents in 1975.   


Oh,  and for mishandling classified documents .   

[Oceander]

@Oceander
State of mind MAY be a factor in sentencing but in 99% of the cases I've saw in 10 years Active duty and about 10 years working around it as a civilian thats all it counts for.

Every single person with access to classified material receives training on the proper handling.   People at her level have to sign off that they attended the training but usually skip it.  EVERYONE at the lower levels has it.   Its very black and white, no gray area at all.  They tell you how to handle classified and they tell you what will happen if you mess up.   When stuff happens they do an investigation into what happened.   If it was a mistake they take that into consideration especially what the circumstances were.   If it is negligence they take a very different view.

For example; I was burning classified one time.  Spent about an hour in this little building throwing papers into the fire with another guy who was verifying each page went in.    Once we were done we walked out only to see small pieces of paper floating down from the sky.  The screen in the incinerator turned out to be broken and was allowing paper to be sucked up the chimney.    I spent a long time searching the nearby roofs and blast revetments for small pieces of paper but didn't get into trouble.

Another time a coworker accidentally threw a very important item out with his lunchbox.    After about 10 people spent 8 hours searching through stacks of garbage for the entire base he ended up leaving the Air Force early.

Did he intend to throw it out with his lunch?   No, but he certainly paid the price and was quite lucky his coworkers didn't throw him down a deep hole.  We had a really cool one btw, had a huge fan blade at the bottom.

No, state of mind is almost always an element of the crime; there are not that many strict liability crimes.  The problem is that Comey makes way too much of that requirement.  Knowing that what you received was classified information, and then giving it to someone without making sure that person has the necessary clearance would probably be enough state of mind to make you guilty.

My point is not that state of mind is irrelevant - it isn't - but that Comey is mis-stating the state of mind requirement.  The facts he recited, by themselves, would be sufficient - in my view - to support an indictment and a conviction; in other words, they would tend to support a finding of the necessary state of mind.

[driftdiver]

No, state of mind is almost always an element of the crime; there are not that many strict liability crimes.  The problem is that Comey makes way too much of that requirement.  Knowing that what you received was classified information, and then giving it to someone without making sure that person has the necessary clearance would probably be enough state of mind to make you guilty.

My point is not that state of mind is irrelevant - it isn't - but that Comey is mis-stating the state of mind requirement.  The facts he recited, by themselves, would be sufficient - in my view - to support an indictment and a conviction; in other words, they would tend to support a finding of the necessary state of mind.

And Im saying when it comes to 99% of the population intent or state of mind is not a consideration in determining guilt.  They DO NOT care.

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information"

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Its very very clear cut.   There is no gray area it is irrelevant.   They do not have to show intent, all they have to show is you failed to handle it properly.   If she could show she didn't know it was classified she could be found innocent.  They removed the classified markings which eliminates this possibility.

No, she's innocent by virtue of being Bills wife and a very powerful person herself.

[r9etb]

No, state of mind is almost always an element of the crime; there are not that many strict liability crimes.

You're right.  The relevant statute: 18 USC Section 798

a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information

I suppose Comey is saying it's difficult to prove "knowingly and willfully". 

However, given the classification marking requirements for classified documents, it's hard to believe that this activity wasn't done "knowingly" by somebody, and the fact that they did it time and time again certainly demonstrates the "willfully" part.

[driftdiver]

By all rights,  Hillary should have gone to jail for setting up that email server intending to get around the Freedom of Information act.   



And for Whitewater.   And for Cattle Futures.  And for Filegate.  And for Travelgate.  And for lying to a Federal Judge and creating false documents in 1975.   


Oh,  and for mishandling classified documents .   

But not for dodging sniper fire

[Bigun]

Repeatedly transmitting documents marked "classified" to someone not cleared to receive them fully demonstrates knowingly and willfully IMHO!

[driftdiver]

Repeatedly transmitting documents marked "classified" to someone not cleared to receive them fully demonstrates knowingly and willfully IMHO!

Unless you're Clinton.   

Anyone else and Comey would be trying to put you away for life.

[Hondo69]

Where does it say Comey gets to determine intent?

[Bigun]

Where does it say Comey gets to determine intent?

Indeed!  That should be left up to a jury!

[DiogenesLamp]

But not for dodging sniper fire

For her,  a routine and trivial lie of no perceivable criminality or consequence. 


On the other hand,  apparently so are the rest of her lies. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Unless you're Clinton.   

Anyone else and Comey would be trying to put you away for life.

This is the ugly side of America's hidden Aristocracy. 

[Hondo69]

This is the ugly side of America's hidden Aristocracy.

Gee, now who was it that was talking about Two Americas?

[Free Vulcan]

This is where in a sane world Comey would be fired, or at least forcing Comey to file charges or resign. I can't believe this gross dereliction of duty is being given a pass.

[Forum member]

I don't handle classified info but I do get the training because it is used at one facility I might visit. One thing that stuck with me was creating an unsafe situation for the material can result in a $10,000 per day fine. Like leaving your desk drawer unlocked overnight or laying the document face down on the desk while you are at lunch. If nothing else, she had that open server for several years, at least get a few million from her and force her to go make another speech to earn it back.