Changes

In a nationally televised address on April 10, 2016 [[President Obama]] intervened on behalf of the presumptive [[Democrat]] presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Obama made clear that he did not want criminal charges brought against Clinton. Obama made two points: Mrs. Clinton 1) had exhibited “carelessness,” and 2) had not intended to breach national security when she stored and transmitted classified information on her private system.  

In a nationally televised address on April 10, 2016 [[President Obama]] intervened on behalf of the presumptive [[Democrat]] presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Obama made clear that he did not want criminal charges brought against Clinton. Obama made two points: Mrs. Clinton 1) had exhibited “carelessness,” and 2) had not intended to breach national security when she stored and transmitted classified information on her private system.  

Clinton herself and other key witnesses had not been interviewed.

Dir. Comey wrote an internal memorandum saying Hillary Clinton and others were guilty of gross negligence punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment;<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/06/report-comey-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-in-email-case/?utm_source=site-share </ref> Comey sent draft copies of a public announcement he was planning to Dep. Dir. Andrew McCabe, general counsel James Baker and chief of staff James Rybicki for their input.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/comey-draft-said-it-was-reasonably-likely-that-hillarys-server-was-hacked/?utm_content=bufferf8260&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer </ref> Comey had already decided to exonerate Clinton. Clinton herself and 17 other key witnesses had not yet been interviewed. Comey''s memo further is evidence of he wholly anticipated on May 2, 2016 to usurp the [[Attorney General]]'s authority contradicting his sworn testimony he only decided days in advance of his public press conference because the Attorney General had compromised herself by meeting privately with [[Bill Clinton]] in Phoenix in late June.

Agent Peter Strzok changed the term “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” If Comey used the words “grossly negligent,” it would be the equivalent of pronouncing Clinton guilty.

The FBI admited it recovered thousands of State Dept. emails that originated or passed through Clinton’s private server — some which had been deleted — that were never turned over to the State Department as government records by Clinton’s team. Comey told Sen. Grassley that the FBI did investigate whether violations of Federal Records Act occurred.

The principal [[felony]] offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code). To prove this offense, the prosecutor must prove that the official 1) had possession of the information, 2) had “reason to believe [it] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” 3) transmitted it to an authorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency, and 4) acted willfully, which means acting intentionally and with an understanding that one’s actions are wrongful. This is a straightforward case of [[criminal]] intent.  

The principal [[felony]] offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code). To prove this offense, the prosecutor must prove that the official 1) had possession of the information, 2) had “reason to believe [it] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” 3) transmitted it to an authorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency, and 4) acted willfully, which means acting intentionally and with an understanding that one’s actions are wrongful. This is a straightforward case of [[criminal]] intent.  

There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; she must merely be aware that it could happen. Of course, every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this. Making the official aware of it and having the official expressly acknowledge her awareness are essential parts of the indoctrination that is a condition of getting the clearance. And thus every government official with a security clearance knows it is wrongful to transfer classified information to a person not authorized to have it or to a place where its storage is not authorized.<ref>http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/455202/hillary-clinton-email-investigations-trump-justice-department-revives-motive-criminal-intent </ref>

There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; she must merely be aware that it could happen. Of course, every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this. Making the official aware of it and having the official expressly acknowledge her awareness are essential parts of the indoctrination that is a condition of getting the clearance. And thus every government official with a security clearance knows it is wrongful to transfer classified information to a person not authorized to have it or to a place where its storage is not authorized.<ref>http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/455202/hillary-clinton-email-investigations-trump-justice-department-revives-motive-criminal-intent </ref>

===Peter Strzok===

===Peter Strzok===