by:
RANDY DEABAY
Trey Gowdy, the pride of South Carolina, again showed why he is such a
valuable asset to America, the Constitution, and South Carolina. In one
fell swoop, Gowdy exposed both FBI director Comey and Democratic
presumptive Presidential nominee Hillary. It appears Gowdy has advanced
judicial plans for slippery Hillary.
Gowdy appeared to be setting Hillary Clinton up for perjury charges.
Hillary previously testified about her emails to the House Benghazi
Committee. Specifically, Hillary said under oath that she had not sent
or received classified documents on her personal email server.
Under cross-examination from Representative Gowdy, Director Comey
admitted that Hillary lied. Since she was under oath, this sets her up
for being charged with perjury. That is why Trey Gowdy is such an
important member of the House of Representatives! He set the proceedings
to charge Hillary with perjury.
Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how
Clinton could possibly evade punishment. The exchange grew heated at
times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: “You and I both know
intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce
‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put
everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'”
Comey admitted to Gowdy that Hillary Clinton’s attorneys scrubbed her
devices and server in a way that would prevent recovery of some emails.
He also stated that Hillary lied and used multiple devices to send
emails. It also came to light during this questioning that Hillary lied
about sending classified information, but she had a rationale behind
that. Gowdy was inventive enough in his rapid-fire questioning to get
Comey to admit that Hillary is shockingly inept to know what classified
means!
Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent
or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that
true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That’s what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are
not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked
classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not e-mail any classified
information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.”
That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related
emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a
server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt
that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the
email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the
emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content
individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to
catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the
false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat.
Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job, you would
prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex
scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public
record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the
destruction that you and I just talked about or certainly the failure to
preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would
also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme
when it started when it ended and the number of emails whether they
were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent.
You would also, probably, under the common scheme or plan, argue the
burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar
entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position
should have known a private email was no place to send and receive
classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to
do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former
United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the
president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be
president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ’08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account,
kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over
to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of
office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of
which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email
comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in
the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient
evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not
intentionally so.
You and I both know the intent is really difficult to prove. Very
rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this
criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to
break the law on this date.’
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial
evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is
proved, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for
gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no
precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t.
There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from
this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double
track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this
country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself
classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary
Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not
be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the
reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person
understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us
would be. With that, I would yield back.
The source of this transcript is closed captioning.
It is the time that we get the full truth and Justice needs to prevail in this case.