Opinion| Lisa Page’s testimony revealed a bombshell, that the DOJ, under then-President Barack Obama, urged the FBI against charging Hillary Clinton with “gross negligence” in 2016 after it was found that she mishandled classified government information when it was found that she had used a private email server from her home during her time serving as Secretary of State.
The statute says:
(f) 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.
The statute does not say the word “classified,” but rather says “any document.” It’s also important to take note of the fact that the word “intent” does not show up in the statute.
David Harris Jr. explains that this was done with intent because “Congress felt so strongly about it that they wanted to make it known that even if you accidentally violate the statute, you will be charged. Gross negligence is the standard, and that’s what former fired and disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote for former fired and disgraced FBI Director James Comey, until gross negligence was changed to “extremely careless,” thinking we the people would be stupid enough to believe that only the words gross negligence would trigger the statute?”
According to the testimony of former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the Justice Department pushed the FBI to turn their cheek on the crimes committed by Clinton.
The transcripts of Page’s testimony were released to the public this week.
In her testimony, Page said that the FBI did not blow off the charge of gross negligence, to the contrary, she said they had “multiple conversations” with DOJ officials about charging Clinton with gross negligence. In the end, the DOJ said that a charge of gross negligence was “too vague” and felt it couldn’t “permissibly bring the charge” or “sustain” it. BULLSCHTEIN! Gross negligence is gross negligence. Extremely careless is gross negligence. In this instance, it means a lack of caring about the security of government documents, a reckless disregard of the legal duty to protect the contents of said documents. The very fact that Clinton had a private email server, and was using it to conduct government business, is in itself a reckless disregard of the legal duty to protect the contents of the emails sent and received.
In 2016, Loretta Lynch testified in front of Congress, telling the committee, “I made the decision, some time ago, that I would accept the recommendation of that team. When I received it, there was no basis not to accept it, and again I reiterate my pride and faith in them.”
This all leads back to the infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.
Via the Washington Examiner:
She also said, “I met with … career prosecutors and agents who conducted that investigation. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation,” “I received the recommendation of the team, and that team was composed of prosecutors and agents. With the unanimous recommendation as to how to resolve the investigation, and what the information that they had received,” and “I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it.”
It’s pretty clear that Lynch was backed into a corner after her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton made it to the news.
Davidharrisjr.com explains, “if we are to believe the testimony of Lisa Page that the DOJ had already ordered the FBI not to charge Clinton for her crimes, was Lynch not committing perjury when she testified that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made, even though her department had already ordered the FBI not to charge Clinton?”
Cornell Law: “18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines “obstruction of justice” as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”
According to this definition, and if Page is teling the truth, not only did Lynch lie to Congress, she obstructed justice when her Justice Dept ordered the FBI not to prosecute Clinton. Now the Democrats will say that Lynch is not lying, this team of prosecutors she had assembled told the FBI not to prosecute the case and she had nothing to do with it. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.
LegalMatch.com states that “Penalties for misdemeanor are typically simple fines while felony charges can yield jail time of up to ten years.” It will be interesting to see if the feckless Congress actually holds Lynch to account, but if they do and she is convicted with Felony Obstruction of Justice, she could be looking at 10 years in prison.
If convicted of perjury, Lynch could be looking at up to another 5 years according to CNBC. For those keeping score that’s up to 15 years in prison for Loretta … if she is charged, tried, and convicted. Of course, she will never serve this time but the threat of it may provide the leverage needed to get her to roll on her boss.
If I were Hillary and Obama I would be sweating bullets wondering if when Lynch gets called on her lies, will she roll over and give ME up? They never thought he would win …
These are the facts as I see them. It should be noted that I am not a member of the BAR association and this is my interoperation of what the statues and how they apply to Lynch’s conduct. It is also noteworthy that in 2017 Fox News was reporting the same thing with less information: “Could Loretta Lynch face 5-10 years in jail”