You and I, though, would be in a dungeon never to be seen again if we did these things.

One of the revelations from Comey in his testimony to a congressional panel yesterday was the fact that Huma Abedin regularly forwarded classified material to her pervert husband so he could print them out for her. The statute under which Hillary certainly should have been charged, would also apply to Huma, but strangely they’re both getting passes from Comey.

Here’s what the statute governing this situation 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.

Notice there’s no statement about ‘intent.’ It’s just about “gross negligence.” This is why people were surprised during that first Comey press conference where he described gross negligence on behalf of Hillary Clinton but then absolved her because he said there was no “intent.”

For Huma, Comey gave her a pass because she didn’t kow she was violating the law. Yeah, not kidding.

Via American Mirror.

In a line of questioning by Sen. John Kennedy, Comey said the FBI closed its investigation into Abedin after concluding she had no idea what she was doing was in violation of the law.

“Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him, I think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the Secretary of State,” Comey said.

Comey didn’t know if Weiner read the “classified material.”

“I don’t think so,” Comey said, searching for an answer. “I don’t think we’ve been able to interview him because he has pending criminal problems of other sorts,” referring to allegations he exchanged dirty messages with an underage girl.

Comey told Kennedy Weiner would have “potentially” committed a crime if he had read the emails, and that Abedin would have “potentially” committed one as well for sending them…

When asked why the FBI concluded neither of them committed a crime, Comey responded, “With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn’t have any indication that she had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law.

With Kennedy staring at him, Comey added, “Couldn’t prove any sort of criminal intent.”

Question: How many Americans are prosecuted annually for crimes they had no idea they were committing, or had no “intent” to break the law?


This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
1 Comment | Leave a comment
  1. Maynard says:

    Hillary’s classified materials, which she shouldn’t even have on her personal space, get passed along to her right-hand gal Huma, and end up on Weiner’s computer; the same computer he regularly uses to transmit pictures of his genitalia to underage girls.

    With respect to “negligence” vs. “intent”…by DEFINITION, “negligence” is NEVER done with “intent”. If it was done with intent, then it’s not negligence, is it? So Comey made up a condition that made Hillary’s indictment IMPOSSIBLE.

    Blatant criminality, blatant incompetence, blatant ignorance, blatant mental illness, blatant corruption. These are a select few of the adventures of the “most qualified candidate in history”.

You must be logged in to post a comment.