In The News

[Video] Gowdy Destroys Comey But Doesn’t Go Far Enough

gowdy

Trey Gowdy was able to destroy Comey on part of the argument into Hillary’s emails but he didn’t go far enough to speak to intent. That was a huge mistake.  I realize intent is hard to prove in most cases but not in this case because too many  of Hillary’s actions were designed to hide what she was doing or to hide her email records which is an illegal act.  First, let’s look at what Gowdy did right.

From Breitbart News:

GOWDY: …I’m going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?

COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

GOWDY: Exactly. Intent, and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?

COMEY: Right.

GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt, and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record. And you would be arguing, in addition to concealment, the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.

You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme: when it started, when it ended, and the number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.

You would also probably, under “common scheme or plan,” argue the “burn bags” of daily calendar entires, or the missing daily calendar entires as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email is no place to sand and receive classified information. And you’re right: an average person does know not to do that. This is no average person: this is a former First Lady, a former United States Senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since [Thomas] Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ’08, but he says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, she kept these private e-mails for almost two years, and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private e-mail account.

So you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took the oath of office; thousands of what we now know to be classified e-mails, some of which were classified at the time; one of her more frequent e-mailed comrades was, in fact, hacked, and you don’t know whether or not she was; and this scheme took place over long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records — and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent?

You say she was “extremely careless,” but not intentionally so. Now, you and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce, “On this day, I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this day.” It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence — or, if you’re Congress, and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for “gross negligence.”

The statute to which Gowdy referred is the one under which Comey said the FBI had investigated Clinton: namely, 18 U.S.C. section 793(f), which requires only a showing of “gross negligence,” not intent, in mis-handling classified materials.

 

All that is well and good but Gowdy or some other member of the committee should have laid out the facts that point directly to intent.

#1  Hillary set up a private server prior to taking over the State Department.  None of the emails contained on that server were handed over to the State Dept until a full two years after she left office.

#2  During her entire term in office, she blocked legitimate FOIA requests because she held onto those emails instead of turning them over to the State Dept.  In fact for two years after she left office, she continued to shield public information from those requesting it in violation of the FOIA.

#3  Huma Abedin admitted to the FBI that Hillary destroyed her daily logs many times in an effort to prevent anyone to know who she was meeting with.

#4  She hid the fact that she was using a private server from the public because that would have raised questions.

#5  Once it was discovered that she was using a private email server, she said she did it for convenience, so that she would only have to use one device.  Comey knew that wasn’t true and during his press conference said that she used multiple devices.

#6  Hillary said that no emails on her server were marked classified when she received them.  Again, that was a lie that Comey acknowledged in his news conference.  Besides all the emails he found that were marked classified when she received them, Comey said there were hundreds more that she would have known were classified as would anyone in a position such as hers.

#7  Clinton claimed that she turned over all of her work related emails.  Comey knew that was a lie because he recovered what he said was “thousands” of emails that were recovered from her server.  Comey also said that many more emails could not be recovered that could very well be work related but they had been destroyed while under Hillary’s care.

#8  When Clinton left the State Dept, she took every single email with her, which is a violation of the Public Records Act.  By law they should have been turned over the day she left, yet it took two years and numerous requests to get them.

#9  On multiple occasions, Hilary testified under oath that she received no emails marked classified, making that perjury.

Proving intent is indeed difficult, yet people do get convicted of intent all over this country.  How is that done?  Simple.  They show a pattern of behavior in an effort to cover their tracks.  As you can see with Hillary, she has a pattern that has gone on for years, trying to hide and deceive.  She has committed perjury and hidden her actions.  I know the case would never be reopened and Hillary Clinton will never pay for her crimes, but it would put it on the record and give pundits something to write about.

To Top