Today's continuation of the multi- year Hillary Clinton Republican witch hunt, in which FBI Director James Comey was called to testify to a House
On "gross negligence" not being an issue here:
... I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So given that assessment of the facts, my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence. And so I know that's been a source of some confusion for folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did. (our emphasis)We wonder if that's clear enough, or should Director Comey submit that information in coloring book form for the Republican members.
On the matter of e-mails being marked "classified," contrary to Ms. Clinton's recollection, Comey responds to questioning by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA):
REP. MATT CARTWRIGHT: All right, you were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here, Marking Classified National Security Information, and I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No.
CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual -- and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman -- according to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?
COMEY: Correct.
CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
COMEY: No, there were three emails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
CARTWRIGHT: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference. (our emphasis)So, contrary to some sloppy, ill- informed "reporting" =cough= Mrs. Alan Greenspan =cough=, Ms. Clinton would not have been aware that these e-mails contained classified information since they did not have the proper "classified" header, contrary to national security guidelines. (Two other e-mails, it turns out, were improperly marked "classified," but hey, no harm no foul amirite?!)
Finally, here's Comey reacting to smarmy insinuations by man- with- a- bad- rug Rep. John "Weaselheaded F*cknugget" Mica (R- FL) that he was in collusion with the White House or other political players before coming to the conclusion not to recommend prosecution:
Now, these Republican assholes plan to pursue a "referral" to the FBI to see if they can find something in Ms. Clinton's Benghazi!!! testimony that they can use to drag this nonsense out until November (and beyond), because they want their neo- fascist demagogue to be elected. That stain won't go away so easily.
BONUS: Director Comey also has to answer to questions of abuse of power himself (h/t P.E.C.).
