First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail

According to a new report from The Hill, early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made its way into the final statement.

As The Hill further points out, the change in language is significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.

An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been ‘grossly negligent” in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.

 

The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.

 

The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.

 

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information,” reads the statement, one of Comey’s earliest drafts.

 

Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was “extremely careless.”

Hillary Comey

Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges against actions which he described only as "extremely careless."

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the 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 with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.

“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.”

Unfortunately, The Hill's sources couldn't confirm the most important detail behind this bombshell new revelation, namely who made the call to the change the language...

The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the memos show that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki.

 

The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes, the sources said. The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to demand the FBI identify who made the changes and why, the sources said.

...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his statement? 

Nah, they probably really did just discuss their grandkids...

Comments

GUS100CORRINA IH8OBAMA Mon, 11/06/2017 - 16:11 Permalink

My response: We all suspected this kind of thing was going on, but now we have it in black and white text. The real question: What happens next? Federal laws have been clearly broken.I for one will be very unhappy in NOTHING happens because it means that no one of honor and integrity is left to prosecute criminals.

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

auricle bamawatson Mon, 11/06/2017 - 18:12 Permalink

Deep state operative Comey thinks another deep state operative Hillary was neglegent. The deep state cannot be prosecuted. It does not operate under the same laws as the citizenry. Hillary and comey are untouchable, while Podesta, Manafort and Flynn are. Trump should have used this as a litmus for the AG role. Session is not the man for the job. 

In reply to by bamawatson

Manthong jcaz Mon, 11/06/2017 - 19:31 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
 Awshit… At this point , what difference does it make to the feral bureau of matters or the deportment of injustice?

In reply to by jcaz

Manthong Manthong Mon, 11/06/2017 - 19:49 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
 ..back in the day… I handled a bunch of Top Secret, Special Intelligence  NoForn docs …   But you know, even if I did not wipe the top of the teletype with a cloth… And even if I did not intend to leave any of them with a Soviet charmer at the bar …. The fact that I mishandled them whether sober, cogent or not would not dismiss me from responsibility. Period… full stop. And shit… I was not even the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

In reply to by Manthong

All Risk No Reward auricle Tue, 11/07/2017 - 07:07 Permalink

"The Deep State" is a cover for the true power structure - THE MONEY POWER.The Deep State is financed.  The borrower is SERVANT to the LENDER.The Debt-Money Sith Lord propaganda programming has so many of ya'll confused...  Everyone talks about the Deep State as though it is in control.It isn't.  It works for a paycheck.  That paycheck is provided by the Debt-Money Sith.Go tell your boss you won't do what your boss's job description says you must do and see what happens.This is elementary, but ordinary people are incredibly THICK!"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."~Lord Acton“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”~Napoleon Bonaparte "Let the American people go into their debt-funding schemes and banking systems, and from that hour their boasted independence will be a mere phantom." ~William Pitt, (referring to the inauguration of the first National Bank in the United States under Alexander Hamilton).How To Be a Crookhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oHbwdNcHbcPoverty - Debt Is Not a Choicehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7BTTB4tiEURenaissance 2.0 The Rise of [Debt-Money Monopolist] Financial Empirehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96c2wXcNA7ADebunking Moneyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iBSBVew-3YKrugman (and each MIT economist professor - THEY KNOW AND THEY OCCULT!) is a Goebbelsian propagandist as he covers the crimes of wolves with his fake sheep suit and lisp.Krugman to Lietaer: "Never touch the money system!"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6nL9elK0EY

In reply to by auricle

greenskeeper carl Bastiat Mon, 11/06/2017 - 17:38 Permalink

Funny thing about the way these laws are written - no where in them does it list that criminal intent has to exist. As in, she didn't 'intend' to remove those classified files from their proper channels, which is a defense the left has used for her. Comedy is no doubt aware of that little fact, yet still did nothing. And 'I didn't know I couldn't do that' isn't an excuse either, because each and every person signs an agreement before being given access to such things that says, in a nutshell, even an accidental fuck up still counts, as in no 'criminal intent' to remove things from their proper places is required for you to be guilty.

Autocorrect changed 'Comey' to comedy above, after a moments reflection, I decided that was appropriate and didn't fix it.

In reply to by Bastiat

greenskeeper carl booboo Mon, 11/06/2017 - 22:58 Permalink

Yep, you either handle the material in the required manner, and keep or job and remain out of jail, or you handle it in any other manner, and you lose your clearance and go to jail. The question I've always asked is what would happen if a couple minor functionaries, or junior enlisted people, started emailing these types of things back and forth on a non govt server like this. Most people agree that they'd get fired and/or go to jail. So, why isn't clinton and gang in jail? Because thats the way it works in a banana republic.

In reply to by booboo

Bigly Bastiat Mon, 11/06/2017 - 22:38 Permalink

She had his balls in a vice grip so he folded like a house of cards. Pussy. Donna actually has bigger balls. Yes, she's bilious but knows she is a liability waiting to be cleaned. Like with a cloth.The best thing ALL of them can do is Sing, SING.And have a videotape is a secret vault as backup insurance. 

In reply to by Bastiat

Milton Keynes The_Juggernaut Mon, 11/06/2017 - 18:08 Permalink

THe Gross Negligence standard doesn't require intent. It just requires that you act "carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property." it's a standard of conduct, not intent.

In reply to by The_Juggernaut

Thomas Paine pods Tue, 11/07/2017 - 08:39 Permalink

Exactly pods...exactly as you said, the mere presence and the use of the private server is exactly THE EVIDENCE of "INTENT" to both mishandle information and exchange secret communications outside established process and affairs of government...and as facts now show without doubt to facilitate a plethora of nefarious activities.

In reply to by pods