Anonymous ID: c4583b March 4, 2019, 2:20 p.m. No.5506594   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7179

Desperation in the Dems their bullshit never ends

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/obstruction-of-justice-jerrold-nadler-trump.html

 

"But the newest requests from Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman, opened perhaps the most perilous front to date for President Trump — an inquiry that takes aim at the heart of his norm-bending presidency and could conceivably form the basis of a future impeachment proceeding. Mr. Nadler was explicit Monday in saying the House is no longer content to await the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and will delve into many of the same issues, but with a different standard of evidence not wedded to a criminal indictment."

Anonymous ID: c4583b March 4, 2019, 2:42 p.m. No.5507011   🗄️.is 🔗kun

https://theepochtimes.com/exclusive-doj-prevented-fbi-from-pursuing-gross-negligence-charges-against-clinton_2815097.html

 

Early in the Hillary Clinton email case, the Department of Justice reached a decision that would have far-reaching implications for the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server.

 

The Justice Department (DOJ), under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, decided to set an unusually high threshold for prosecuting Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she would not be charged.

 

In order for Clinton to be prosecuted, the DOJ required the FBI to establish evidence of intent—even though the gross negligence statute explicitly does not require this.

 

Intent is a requirement of several statutes the FBI was looking into, but it is specifically not a factor under the charge of gross negligence—contained within 18 U.S. Code § 793(f)—a fact that was brought up by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) during Page’s testimony:

 

Rep. Ratcliffe: “Okay. And that’s — I think, when you talk about intent, that’s certainly true under part of 18 793(f), but it sounds like you all just blew over gross negligence.”

 

Ms. Page: “We did not blow over gross negligence. We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence.”

 

Page made clear during her testimony that the DOJ had decided that, due to “constitutional vagueness,” a charge of gross negligence would not be supported without accompanying proof of intent—a seemingly oxymoronic position:

 

Rep. Ratcliffe: “Okay. So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory, but when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to –“

 

Ms. Page: “That is correct.”

 

Rep. Ratcliffe: “– bring a case based on that.”

 

Meanwhile, Bill Priestap, head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and who was officially in charge of the Clinton investigation, said during testimony that he thought the “number of instances is absolutely a proper consideration” in establishing intent.

 

According to Ryan Breitenbach, who was the House majority counsel at the time of Priestap’s interview, the State Department had identified 22 top-secret emails and 1,300 classified emails on Clinton’s email server. As Breitenbach noted to Priestap during testimony, “I think there might be many who would question whether people in this room would still be in this room if we had hit 1,300 emails on our personal Gmail service.”

 

‘DOJ Not Willing to Charge This’

 

Priestap was shown an email sent from an unknown individual in the FBI general counsel’s office to Priestap’s former boss, Michael Steinbach, which contained a chart of “available statutes for prosecuting the former Secretary of State.” Gross negligence was specifically excluded from the chargeable statutes available to the FBI. Priestap, who had not previously seen the document, expressed concerns that this might have hindered the work of FBI investigators.