Comey Clears Hillary

A

AAAintheBeltway

I will spare you the depressing details. There will be a lot of detailed discussions on cable and smug "I told you so's" from partisan democrats.

Here's the real Comey statement, translated from Washington bureaucratese into plain English:

"It's taken us a long time to finish this because Hillary and her minions have obstructed it every step of the way. I mean, that's the Clinton way isn't it? And there is a lot, thousands of emails, who knows how many have been deleted and lost, Top Secret stuff, lots of influence peddling, that ridiculous family slush fund, all highly criminal stuff that we would destroy some government drone over if they did 1/10 of it. Look, we even screwed up David Petraeus, and all he did was turn over a few reports that no one cared about to his GF.

But let's get real here. I didn't become FBI director because I didn't know which way the wind blows in this town and without sucking up to the media every step of the way. That's why they always refer to me as "respected" and "independent". I always get a laugh out of that but they eat that act up.

Anyway, like I was saying to John Roberts the other day at lunch," I love that Kenny Rogers song, 'You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em..' "

I mean otherwise, you end up like Ken Starr. Who wants that?
And for what, a few lousy emails that the Russkies probably would have just lifted off the State servers anyway? The Chief Justice agreed. No upside, big downside decisions are the easiest, particularly when the media have your back.
 
Comey is no fool. He knows that much of the republican party establishment and particularly its influential Wall Street wing want Hillary to be elected, so they can close the chapter on the Trump insurrection. After all, how many speeches does Ken Starr give to Goldman Sachs? Why bite the hand that you hope will feed you?
 
Hillary Clinton Is Above The Law
What could possibly be more grossly negligent than sending unsecured emails in places where hostile actors can read them?

JULY 5, 2016 By David Harsanyi

No reasonable person could possibly square what FBI Director James Comey said about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State with his final recommendation.

On Tuesday, Comey spent 15 minutes meticulously detailing every illegality of Clinton—including her negligent behavior and obstruction of the investigation. And yet, at the end of it all, he offered the absurdly counterintuitive position that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges in such a case.

Well, everything the director said challenged that conclusion. At one point, for example, Comey explained that any “reasonable person should have known this was not an appropriate venue for classified emails.” Only minutes before that, Comey also said that “gross negligence” would suffice for prosecution. So is he accusing the presidential candidate of being too dumb to comprehend what a top secret document is or how an email account works? Because any other explanation makes no sense.

According to the FBI, Clinton sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of them contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. Worse still, “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey explained.

There are few, if any, scenarios I can conceive of that are more grossly negligent when it comes to classified documents than sending them through an unsecured email account in a place where hostile actors can access them. Perhaps Comey could offer the nation an example of what it takes to be prosecuted. What if Hillary left a folder marked “top secret” in front of the Chinese embassy in Russia? Would that do it? I doubt it.

Here’s another question that worth asking: Do presidential candidates have to admit they intended to commit a crime for the FBI to recommend the Justice Department prosecute? In the case of Clinton, it seems so. The FBI doesn’t believe there was intentional misconduct on the part of Clinton. Why did she ignore FIOA requests and fight Congress every step of the way? Why did Hillary lie or mislead law enforcement and the public if it was just an innocent mistake?

On March 1 of this year, Clinton alleged that she “never sent any classified material — nor received any — marked classified.” This was a lie. Hillary asserted that before becoming secretary she merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This was also lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices”—not to mention servers. Any reasonable person could ascertain she was attempting to evade the public. She archived nothing and hid everything until she was discovered. The FBI unearthed several thousand more work-related emails by finding traces of these in decommissioned servers. Other emails were found in accounts of high-ranking officials at other agencies who also, according to Comey, should have known better. It was widely known that she used a private, unsecure email. How is that not grossly negligent?

Granted, I’m not a lawyer, but 18 U.S. Code 1924 — “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material” — clearly states that anyone who “knowingly removes” materials “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Perhaps a prosecution would have been tough, but everything Comey laid out in his press conference — until the very end — only substantiated that Hillary had nonchalantly mishandled classified information.

The case also speaks to trust of government. Comey claimed that he put on this unusual press conference because a high-impact case deserves extraordinary transparency. But transparency doesn’t exempt him from criticism or his investigation from political pressure. Comey basically admits as much near the end of his press conference.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Many people have been prosecuted for far less, including John Deutch, Sandy Berger, David Petraeus, and lesser-known names. Comey’s own words tell us Hillary should have met a similar fate. Hillary will campaign with Barack Obama today, creating the perception that the fix was in. Yesterday, a week after her husband had a private meeting with the Attorney General, some Democrats signaled through a New York Times story that Hillary would probably rehire Loretta Lynch. The stench of Clinton corruption is back. She is above the law. And there is no one to stop her.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/05/hillary-clinton-is-above-the-law/
 
Pretty good analysis:

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


by Andrew C. McCarthy

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. 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. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
 
Now even the director of the FBI is manipulated by the media in the opinion of you right-wing shadow boxers?

AAAintheBeltway said:
I will spare you the depressing details. There will be a lot of detailed discussions on cable and smug "I told you so's" from partisan democrats.

Here's the real Comey statement, translated from Washington bureaucratese into plain English:

"It's taken us a long time to finish this because Hillary and her minions have obstructed it every step of the way. I mean, that's the Clinton way isn't it? And there is a lot, thousands of emails, who knows how many have been deleted and lost, Top Secret stuff, lots of influence peddling, that ridiculous family slush fund, all highly criminal stuff that we would destroy some government drone over if they did 1/10 of it. Look, we even screwed up David Petraeus, and all he did was turn over a few reports that no one cared about to his GF.

But let's get real here. I didn't become FBI director because I didn't know which way the wind blows in this town and without sucking up to the media every step of the way. That's why they always refer to me as "respected" and "independent". I always get a laugh out of that but they eat that act up.

Anyway, like I was saying to John Roberts the other day at lunch," I love that Kenny Rogers song, 'You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em..' "

I mean otherwise, you end up like Ken Starr. Who wants that?
And for what, a few lousy emails that the Russkies probably would have just lifted off the State servers anyway? The Chief Justice agreed. No upside, big downside decisions are the easiest, particularly when the media have your back.
More...
 
Can we move on now? No free ticket for Trumpf.

AAAintheBeltway said:
Pretty good analysis:

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


by Andrew C. McCarthy

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. 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. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
More...
 
I have had it with all the talk that Comey is so professional, etc. He has made a blatantly political judgment, based on the fact that Hillary is a presidential candidate.

The law should be applied in such a way that prosecutors bend over backwards to avoid giving the impression of favoritism to political big shots. This case is an open and shut example of that. Not only was there an obvious violation of the law, but there were also numerous attempts to hinder the investigation by destroying evidence, numerous false statements were made and the President and AG both compromised the investigation. Put bluntly, this reeks.

Trump noted the many special favors Hillary was granted during the investigation, including getting an interview on the 4th of July weekend when news coverage is minimal. And who gets to come in to FBI headquarters on a Saturday anyway?

There is still the issue of the influence peddling, which he did not even address to my knowledge. Hard to call this anything but a typical democrat whitewash job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top