Thursday, July 07, 2016

And it begins

...but Comey suggested that a lack of “intent” would hamper a successful prosecution — even though 793(f) specifically makes “gross negligence” the bar for a felony prosecution. Absent “intentional or willful” mishandling, “vast quantities” of materials, or “efforts to obstruct justice,” Comey insists, no prosecutor would take the case.
Consider the extant case of Kristian Saucier, a sailor who unwisely decided to use his cellphone to take a few photographic mementos of his tour of duty on board a submarine. The photographs allegedly include classified systems within the ship. Saucier is not accused of transmitting the photographs, unsecurely or otherwise. Saucier’s case didn’t involve “vast quantities of materials,” exposed or not. Nevertheless, Saucier has been charged under 18 USC 793 (e), and has accepted responsibility for those violations in an agreement with prosecutors.

Saucier did attempt to render his storage of the photographs unusable and inaccessible after suspicion arose. However, there seems to be little difference between Saucier’s attempts and the efforts by Clinton’s team to “wipe” her server rather than submit it to the State Department when requested — actually, a number of servers, as Comey pointed out. If Saucier’s actions amount to obstructing justice, then shouldn’t Clinton’s?

“Clearly, a double standard [exists],” Saucier’s attorney Derrick Hogan told me hours after Comey’s statement. “To me, there’s really nothing that Mrs. Clinton did that was any different than what Mr. Saucier did.” Saucier currently faces 63 to 78 months in prison for the 793(e) violations.
It’s not the only case, either.
This is going to be a huge problem.  And "I'll do what I'm told" Comey is directly responsible.

Wonder if he gives a damn?

1 comment:

Windy Wilson said...

If he's going through a divorce or has one already, my money's on, "if you don't say there's no case your ex is going to say you diddled the kids."
Or did I say this here already?