Trey Gowdy DESTROYS FBI Director's Argument That Hillary Didn't Intend To Mishandle Classified Info

FBI Director James Comey was put under the bright lights of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee again this week as they questioned why he gave immunity to so many possible suspects in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information on her unsecured, personal server.

Gowdy__Hillary__Comey.jpg

One thing Republican South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy has had a difficult time accepting is Comey's insistence that he was correct to not recommend Hillary for prosecution because there's no proof she intended to do anything wrong. Watch this incredible clip as Gowdy destroys Comey's insistence that Hillary is innocent:

(Note: Skip to 3:15 if you want to get right to Gowdy's smackdown.)

GOWDY: "Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, 'I intend to commit this time on this date. Go ahead and check the code section. I'm going to do it. That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence. Such as:
— Whether or not the person intended to setup an e-mail system outside the State Department.
— Whether or not that person knew or should have known that his or her job involved classified information.
— Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.
— Whether or not the person knew that a frequent e-mailer to her had been hacked, and whether she took any remedial steps after being put on notice that...someone who had been e-mailing prolifically with her had been hacked.

"I think you would agree with this, director. False, exculpatory statements are gold in a courtroom. I would rather have a false, exculpatory statement than a confession. I would rather have someone lie about something and it be provable that is a lie, such as:
— That I neither sent nor received classified information.
— That I turned over all of my work-related e-mails.

"All of that to me goes to the issue of intent. For those who may have to prosecute these cases in the future, what would [Hillary] have had to do to warrant your recommendation for prosecution? If all of that was not enough — because all of that is what she did — surely you cannot be arguing that you have to have an intent to harm the United States to be subject to this prosecution. That's treason!"