Comey's remarks on Clinton probe heavily edited

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
WireAP_f2081a2d2ff7470f98c0500d5d1f4b7b_12x5_992.jpg

WASHINGTON — A draft statement former FBI Director James Comey prepared in anticipation of concluding the Hillary Clinton email case without criminal charges was heavily edited to change the "tone and substance" of the remarks, a Republican senator said Thursday.

Some of the edits proposed to the May 2016 draft, obtained by The Associated Press, appear to soften the gravity of the bureau's findings.

Comey, for instance, initially wrote that the FBI believed that Clinton and her aides were "grossly negligent" in their handling of classified information, language also contained in the relevant criminal statute.

But the text was edited to say they were simply "extremely careless" in their use of a personal email server, a phrase Comey adopted for his July 5 public announcement that the FBI would not be recommending charges.

Comey's ultimate statement also omitted language asserting that the "sheer volume" of information classified as secret at the time it was shared made it reasonable to believe that the former secretary of state and her aides were grossly negligent.

In addition, while Comey initially said it was "reasonably likely" that "hostile actors" had gained access to Clinton's email server, the text was edited to say that such an intrusion was "possible."

The original version noted that the FBI had worked with partners in the intelligence community to determine whether the server had been compromised. While it was unclear what significance this had, it was omitted from Comey's final text.

Though the FBI had not yet interviewed Clinton, then the Democratic candidate for president, at the time the statement was drafted, FBI officials had already determined that criminal charges were probably not warranted and had begun thinking about how to present that conclusion to the public.

Comey on May 2 circulated a proposed draft statement to other senior FBI officials laying out the basis for the eventual decision against recommending charges for Clinton and her aides.

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he had obtained from the FBI a copy of Comey's original draft with proposed line-by-line edits from other FBI officials. It's not clear from the document which official suggested what changes, though many were incorporated into Comey's July 5 announcement.

In a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray, Johnson said edits to Comey's original remarks "appear to change the tone and substance." He asked the FBI to identify the officials who had proposed the changes.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...omeys_remarks_on_clinton_probe_heavily_edited
 
anatta said:
WireAP_f2081a2d2ff7470f98c0500d5d1f4b7b_12x5_992.jpg

WASHINGTON — A draft statement former FBI Director James Comey prepared in anticipation of concluding the Hillary Clinton email case without criminal charges was heavily edited to change the "tone and substance" of the remarks, a Republican senator said Thursday.

Some of the edits proposed to the May 2016 draft, obtained by The Associated Press, appear to soften the gravity of the bureau's findings.

Comey, for instance, initially wrote that the FBI believed that Clinton and her aides were "grossly negligent" in their handling of classified information, language also contained in the relevant criminal statute.

But the text was edited to say they were simply "extremely careless" in their use of a personal email server, a phrase Comey adopted for his July 5 public announcement that the FBI would not be recommending charges.

Comey's ultimate statement also omitted language asserting that the "sheer volume" of information classified as secret at the time it was shared made it reasonable to believe that the former secretary of state and her aides were grossly negligent.

In addition, while Comey initially said it was "reasonably likely" that "hostile actors" had gained access to Clinton's email server, the text was edited to say that such an intrusion was "possible."

The original version noted that the FBI had worked with partners in the intelligence community to determine whether the server had been compromised. While it was unclear what significance this had, it was omitted from Comey's final text.

Though the FBI had not yet interviewed Clinton, then the Democratic candidate for president, at the time the statement was drafted, FBI officials had already determined that criminal charges were probably not warranted and had begun thinking about how to present that conclusion to the public.

Comey on May 2 circulated a proposed draft statement to other senior FBI officials laying out the basis for the eventual decision against recommending charges for Clinton and her aides.

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he had obtained from the FBI a copy of Comey's original draft with proposed line-by-line edits from other FBI officials. It's not clear from the document which official suggested what changes, though many were incorporated into Comey's July 5 announcement.

In a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray, Johnson said edits to Comey's original remarks "appear to change the tone and substance." He asked the FBI to identify the officials who had proposed the changes.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...omeys_remarks_on_clinton_probe_heavily_edited
Click to expand...


Just more b******* of course it's edited everything written is edited
 
Last edited:
She would have met both the language used and the behavior described of the Gross Negligence - Espionage Act statute.
The "frequency" or "sheer number" (classified )language was key to prosecution- it's a behavior- which goes to intent
 
anatta said:
She would have met both the language used and the behavior described of the Gross Negligence - Espionage Act statute.
The "frequency" or "sheer number" (classified )language was key to prosecution- it's a behavior- which goes to intent
Click to expand...

Isn't prosecution mandatory in cases where a finding of gross negligence is established?
 
18 U.S. Code § 793(f)Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

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.
 
God bless America said:
Isn't prosecution mandatory in cases where a finding of gross negligence is established?
Click to expand...
if you read the draft without the "softening language" (Sen. Ron Johnson) it is everything needed to indict.

In fact with her high level of security clearance, and ability to classify at will -
she never took that part of her job seriously which is gross negligence.

-and worse ran classified thru her private server which was then assessed to have a high risk of hacking
 
More hair splitting bullshit.

And talk about gross exaggeration!!!!

1) "grossly negligent" was edited to say "extremely careless"

2) "reasonably likely" was edited to say "possible."

And what does the thread title say? "Comey's remarks on Clinton probe heavily edited".

So, according to this latest attempt by Trumptards to obstruct justice, slightly altering the wording of TWO PHRASES equals "heavily edited".

What bullshit!!!!! :palm:
 
anatta said:
if you read the draft without the "softening language" (Sen. Ron Johnson) it is everything needed to indict.
In fact with her high level of security cleaaence, and ability to classify at will -she never took that part of her job seriously which is( gross negligence) -and worse ran classified thru her private server .
Click to expand...

You don't know your ass from your elbow, Trumptard.
 
anatta said:
if you read the draft without the "softening language" (Sen. Ron Johnson) it is everything needed to indict.
In fact with her high level of security cleaaence, and ability to classify at will -she never took that part of her job seriously which is( gross negligence) -and worse ran classified thru her private server .
Click to expand...

The statute is clear, isn't it?
 
God bless America said:
Is there likely to be a prosecution of those responsible?
Click to expand...
HA! by this DoJ??
Sessions should recuse himself from recusal - appoint the appropriate prosecutors and either resign or tell the Dems to go to hell or impeach him.

But Jeff is too honorable with that southern peculiarity that he has to rise above it all
 
anatta said:
HA! by this DoJ??
Sessions should recuse himself from recusal - appoint the appropriate prosecutors and either resign or tell the Dems to go to hell or impeach him.

But Jeff is too honorable with that southern peculiarity that he has to rise above it all
Click to expand...

Hillary has been shown great mercy by the Trump Administration, hasn't she?
 
God bless America said:
Hillary has been shown great mercy by the Trump Administration, hasn't she?
Click to expand...
DoJ is infested with Obama holdovers and bureaucratic loyalists like Rosenstein.
It's the same reasoning for firing all the State Dept foreign service officers and diplomats, and support staff -
they are hostile to Trump
 
Tom Fitton (Judicial Watch), Sara Carter (Circa News), Greg Jarrett (FOX Legal News Analyst)

It's hitting the fan now.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top