King Confronts FBI Director Over “Curiosities” of Clinton E-mail Investigation
King: “It looks to me that the ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card that Hillary Clinton received is rooted clear back in Barack Obama and his introduction of the word intent or lack of intent as a requirement for 18 USC 793 (f).”
Congressman Steve King released the following video of his questioning of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray during a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing held this morning. King used his time to question Director Wray over “curiosities” related to the manner in which the FBI, under the Obama-era leadership of admitted political leaker James Comey, handled the criminal case involving the mishandling of classified information by former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton.
Among the “curiosities” cited by King are: the apparent failures of the FBI to take or preserve notes and/or transcripts, or to record audio or video during their questioning of Mrs. Clinton; the use of an “intent” standard that does not exist in the statute to justify Comey’s decision to let Mrs. Clinton escape prosecution; and Comey’s strange determination that “extreme carelessness”, a standard for which he admits he has evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s guilt, is somehow different than the synonymous “gross negligence” standard that appears in the statute.
Interestingly, in his responses to King, Director Wray admitted that it does not appear standard protocol was followed in the Clinton investigation, and that the statutory “gross negligence” standard is, as King contends, synonymous with a standard of “extreme carelessness.” As such, Mrs. Clinton met the standard for prosecution.
Full Video is available at this link.
18 USC 793 is the federal statute that governs the mishandling of classified information, and it is the applicable statute governing Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails on her private server. Before granting Clinton a “get of jail free card,” former FBI Director James Comey stated:
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.”
As written, 18 USC 793 does not contain a specific “intent” requirement. The applicable standard provided for in statute is that the accused acted with “gross negligence,” a standard Hillary Clinton certainly met based on the existing public evidence, and a standard that appears to be synonymous with the “extreme carelessness” standard Comey has admitted he found prior to absolving Mrs. Clinton.
Claims of an “intent requirement” allowing the previous administration to avoid prosecuting Hillary Clinton criminally appear to be a political invention of former President Obama. After President Obama defended Clinton publically in October of 2015 and April of 2016 by specifically citing Clinton’s supposed “intent,” it appears the Obama-era FBI applied the non-existent standard promoted by the President to their consideration of the Clinton case.
18 USC 793 (f) reads as follows:
“18 USC 793 (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.”