WikiLeaks: John Podesta Was Briefed On "Gross Negligence" Before FBI Removed Phrase From Clinton Exoneration

Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, John Podesta, received an email from an advisor which brought up the phrase "gross negligence" in regards to the FBI's email investigation before the FBI agent in charge of the probe removed the phrase from her exoneration statement, according to WikiLeaks. 




Podesta Emails #45924 (WikiLeaks)

In a March 2016 email from former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy to Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's Gmail account, Flournoy included links to two articles concerning the FBI email investigation; one from the Washington Post which minimized Clinton's actions, and a legal analysis from retired D.C. attorney Paul Mirengoff in which he suggests Clinton was "grossly negligent or worse" and may be in serious hot water. (h/t Mike)


Screen capture,

From Mirengoff in Powerline Blog:  

First, let’s again examine the statutory language:

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .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."

The only other question I perceive that stands in the way of Clinton having violated Section 793(f) is whether it was through gross negligence that she permitted the information relating to the national defense to to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to someone who shouldn’t have gotten it.

It was not ordinary negligence that caused Clinton to permit highly sensitive information to be removed from its proper place and onto Clinton’s private email servers. This strikes me as gross negligence at a minimum. Clinton herself had warned others about the prospect of private email accounts being hacked.

Nor was it ordinary negligence to deliver highly sensitive information to someone lacking a security clearance (in this case, an inveterate gossip). Such imprudence, again, seems grossly negligent or worse. -Powerline Blog

While Mirengoff's assessment was that Hillary Clinton engaged in grossly negligent behavior, Tina Flournoy did not agree - citing the Washington Post article minimizing Clinton's actions:

"The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections." -Tina Flournoy to John Podesta (WikiLeaks)

Perhaps Podesta decided to run this past Hillary Clinton's friends at the FBI, as counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok - who headed up the Clinton email investigation - then removed the phrase "gross negligence" from Clinton's exoneration statement.


To summarize, former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy sent John Podesta an email to his Gmail account on March 9, 2016 - with a Washington Post article containing a link to an opinion by a retired D.C. attorney who thinks Clinton committed Gross Negligence. Former FBI Director James Comey's original draft from May 2, contained the phrase, and at some point over the next eight weeks, Peter Strzok - the man who headed up the investigation, removed it - materially changing the legal significance of Clinton's actions, effectively "decriminalizing" her behavior when Comey gave his speech on July 5, 2016.

One wonders if the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has reviewed this tidbit of information as part of their upcoming report about to be submitted to the Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Congressional investigators - which in all likelihood, assuming their findings are in alignment with recent bombshells, will be the basis for the appointment for a second special counsel and much, much more. 


Bigly wee-weed up Mon, 01/08/2018 - 19:29 Permalink

Looking back over the last year, there were local dems who have decided to leave politics/office after 20-30 years.  If I were cynical, I could think that they knew their ride was coming to an end and decided to bolt early- like roaches.

Others were thrown out of office and replaced by new commies. 

Overall, I have seen more local dem churn in this past year than the previous 20.

In reply to by wee-weed up

STP Bigly Mon, 01/08/2018 - 19:49 Permalink

As a perfect example, take Rep. Luis Guiterrez suddenly not seeking reelection.  Mr. DACA-Azatlan-Dreamer-Illegal Loving-Democrat, who's only 41 years old, yet he's bailing out?   He's got years, if not decades of riches ahead of him and now he's leaving?  Why?

In reply to by Bigly

Bigly STP Mon, 01/08/2018 - 20:02 Permalink

Exactly. It's not just that they think they could lose an election. ..that's politics. I live in a dem stronghold. Dems win over 75% in my town. But my spidey sense thinks some of them are spooked or maybe they have skeletons and think they need to get out for some reason. It is atypical. ..strange.

Regardless, we're not all are gnats. We know who they are and what they've done even if they left office. They need to leave if their crimes are massive. LEAVE and don't come back. Or wear orange minimally. Leaving office does not absolve them.


In reply to by STP

veritas semper… Kayman Mon, 01/08/2018 - 20:57 Permalink

Well,the See Eye Ayy director,Pompeo,just declared that the pesky Russians have interfered into American elections for many,many years,not only in 2016.

The CIA chief's 'revelation' was news to the Russian Foreign Ministry. Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote that Pompeo seems to have become 'entangled in his own lies.' "It would be interesting to known exactly how many decades ago Russia 'started' this dirty business?" she noted.

This triggered a lot of fun on tweeter done by the same interfering Russians:

Pasta Mike is right. Beginning in 2000, Russia insolently interfered in the elections of the president of the Russian Federation, conducted by the USA in 2004, 2008 and 2012. Now it's planning to meddle again. For shame!"

So,you see it's not only the D,it's from the Donald's horse's mouth directly.

In reply to by Kayman

Bumpo ???ö? Mon, 01/08/2018 - 20:15 Permalink

Please, someone explain to me exactly what would be "grosser" negligence than what Hillary did? Seriously, paint me a picture. Tell me a story. Give me a scenario more outrageous than selling the very fuel needed to weaponize a nuclear weapon to the only country that as many nuclear weapons as we do; Making money directly from that sale; Lying about it; Destroying evidence that proves your criminal activity; And then trying to overturn an election with bogus ginned up false documents to distract from your own crimes. Outright murder? Oh yeah, I forgot - Seth Rich. The Whistleblower who proved all of this to be true.

In reply to by ???ö?

Lumberjack JRobby Mon, 01/08/2018 - 22:20 Permalink

Fraud: 5 year statute of limitations.


Thats  how the banksters got away with it. The DOJ intentionally dragged their feet and never brought charges. Time ran out and they lived happily ever after.

This is exactly what is happening in Hillarys case. Time for the public to investigate, prosecute and dispense a fair sentence.

So far we have the first 2 covered. 

In reply to by JRobby

Chupacabra-322 vato poco Mon, 01/08/2018 - 19:55 Permalink

@ vato,


Eh, cardnal.


The minimum requirement to be found guilty of mishandling of States Secrets is Gross Negligence. It’s why Criminals at Large Comey, Muellar &

Strzok changed the language in their report.


An earlier draft included tougher language describing Clinton as “grossly negligent.” Comey then used a softer tone, saying Clinton was “extremely careless” in her use of private emails. According to federal law, “gross negligence” in handling the nation’s intelligence is a felony.


“If the government puts into your hand for safe keeping [the] state’s secrets and you failed to keep them safe by intentionally exposing them or grossly negligently exposing them, you can be prosecuted,” Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said during an interview with FOX Business’ Stuart Varney.

In reply to by vato poco

Dilluminati Mon, 01/08/2018 - 18:57 Permalink

He must have offered a child sacrifice as appeasement to get the charges reduced.. every time I look at one of those two ghouls I think of the art they own which is some disturbing shit to hang on a wall.