by Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog:
If you mishandle classified documents, you go to prison. That is how the law is written, and that is how the law is supposed to work. But up until now top members of the Democratic Party have been immune from prosecution for mishandling classified documents even though evidence that they are guilty is publicly available for everyone to see. On Friday, we learned that there were classified documents among the 2,800 work-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Huma Abedin regularly forwarded documents to her husband’s laptop, and every time she sent a classified document to his laptop it was a violation of federal law.
On Tuesday, President Trump got on Twitter and expressed his desire to see Huma Abedin sent to prison…
Crooked Hillary Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, has been accused of disregarding basic security protocols. She put Classified Passwords into the hands of foreign agents. Remember sailors pictures on submarine? Jail! Deep State Justice Dept must finally act? Also on Comey & others
President Trump is exactly correct. Nobody is supposed to be above the law, and Huma Abedin is clearly guilty.
If she isn’t prosecuted, then what is the point of even having any law to protect classified documents?
To say that Abedin was grossly negligent would be a severe understatement. According to the Daily Caller, she was even using her personal Yahoo email account to transmit “passwords to government systems”…
Huma Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government systems, to her personal Yahoo email account before every single Yahoo account was hacked, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of emails released as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch shows.
Abedin, the top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used her insecure personal email provider to conduct sensitive work. This guarantees that an account with high-level correspondence in Clinton’s State Department was impacted by one or more of a series of breaches — at least one of which was perpetrated by a “state-sponsored actor.”
This is what Trump was talking about when he accused Abedin of putting classified passwords “into the hands of foreign agents”. There is no telling how much damage was done because of Abedin’s carelessness, and she must be held accountable.
Another part of Trump’s tweet that many of you may not get was his reference to “sailors pictures on submarine”. Trump was referring to a former member of the U.S. Navy named Kristian Saucier that was found guilty of mishandling classified information. The following comes from Business Insider…
Trump’s reference to “sailors pictures on submarine” is most likely about the case of Kristian Saucier, who was a machinist’s mate aboard the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine USS Alexandria from September 2007 to March 2012.
In July 2015, Saucier was charged with taking photos of classified spaces, instruments, and equipment inside the USS Alexandria on at least three occasions in 2009.
Court papers also said Saucier attempted to destroy his laptop, camera, and camera memory card after he was interviewed by the FBI and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in July 2012.
Saucier ended up spending a year in prison for what he did.
So why shouldn’t Abedin suffer the same fate?
Well, you can thank James Comey for the fact that Abedin has gotten off the hook so far. According to Comey, Abedin did not understand that “what she was doing was in violation of the law”…
Comey said the FBI completed the investigation into Abedin and couldn’t prove there was any criminal intent, which is required in order to classify something as a criminal act in this situation.
“We didn’t have any indication she had a sense what she was doing was in violation of the law,” Comey said.
This makes me so mad I want to scream.
As I discussed yesterday, intent does not matter in these types of cases at all. In order to get Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin out of trouble, Comey essentially rewrote the law. The following comes from the National Review…
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
Read More @ TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com