Director Comey on Secratary Clinton

[piezoe]

Electing Clinton is to choose a pathological liar and a sociopath. Or we can choose the used car salesman. One might be lying, the other we know is lying. And sadly, half the country cannot distinguish between the two.

I'm dismayed as you at our rotten prospects this coming November. But the reality is that although lying under oath is a crime, everyday lying by politicians is not. It seems both the candidates are consummate liars.

A key phrase in Comey's remarks that bears out what I have been saying all along is: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

We still don't even have a clear, straight forward statement such as, "some of these emails that contained classified information were marked classified at the time they were sent." Instead we have beating around the bush. For example, "...While many e-mails were classified after they were sent, some bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information and at least 110 contained classified information at the time they were sent."

Why the beating around the bush? Is "bearing markings ... indicating the presence of classified information" the same as being marked classified? Not necessarily. Also, containing classified information at the time they were sent is not the same as being "marked as classified." You don't get prosecuted for bad judgement (usually)! Thank goodness for that or we'd all be under indictment.

The government is overflowing with classified documents and emails containing classified information, some of these get mishandled everyday. But it is rare for an indictment to result. Comey has said so, and my own extensive experience with the government's classification system and handling of classified documents indicates to me that he is quite correct..

 

[ETcallhome]

And of course you bring forth all the argument. Too funny. Thanks for your insightful rational.

it really was a new low

 

[CaptainObvious]

I'm dismayed as you at our rotten prospects this coming November. But the reality is that although lying under oath is a crime, everyday lying by politicians is not. It seems both the candidates are consummate liars.

A key phrase in Comey's remarks that bears out what I have been saying all along is: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

We still don't even have a clear, straight forward statement such as, "some of these emails that contained classified information were marked classified at the time they were sent." Instead we have beating around the bush. For example, "...While many e-mails were classified after they were sent, some bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information and at least 110 contained classified information at the time they were sent."

Why the beating around the bush? Is "bearing markings ... indicating the presence of classified information" the same as being marked classified? Not necessarily. Also, containing classified information at the time they were sent is not the same as being "marked as classified." You don't get prosecuted for bad judgement (usually)! Thank goodness for that or we'd all be under indictment.

The government is overflowing with classified documents and emails containing classified information, some of these get mishandled everyday. But it is rare for an indictment to result. Comey has said so, and my own extensive experience with the government's classification system and handling of classified documents indicates to me that he is quite correct..

A key phrase in Comey's remarks that bears out what I have been saying all along is: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
While technically correct it would have been nice to see our law enforcement look to set precedent rather than look for it, considering we're about to elect this person for the highest office in the land. Knowing that there are levels of competence which are expected for said position would be helpful. As it is, there is no apparent level of negligence/incompetence which would disqualify a candidate. At least not this particular candidate.The race to the bottom continues.

 

[conduit]

Maybe it's a race at the bottom the whole time ready. And maybe most of us will condone injustice and unequal treatment this one time as long as the biggest lunatic Trumpf will not come to power. I am even willing to accept giving Hillary a full pass just for the sake to not get Trumpf. That does not mean all Democratic supporters are blind or dumb. It means that for most of us Trumpf is the worse evil among the two.

A key phrase in Comey's remarks that bears out what I have been saying all along is: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
While technically correct it would have been nice to see our law enforcement look to set precedent rather than look for it, considering we're about to elect this person for the highest office in the land. Knowing that there are levels of competence which are expected for said position would be helpful. As it is, there is no apparent level of negligence/incompetence which would disqualify a candidate. At least not this particular candidate.The race to the bottom continues.

 

[piezoe]

A key phrase in Comey's remarks that bears out what I have been saying all along is: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
While technically correct it would have been nice to see our law enforcement look to set precedent rather than look for it, considering we're about to elect this person for the highest office in the land. Knowing that there are levels of competence which are expected for said position would be helpful. As it is, there is no apparent level of negligence/incompetence which would disqualify a candidate. At least not this particular candidate.The race to the bottom continues.

Believe me. I am as bothered by this as you. But at the same time mishandling of classified information in innocuous ways is endemic because there is so much of it. I detest the candidate Clinton, but in this one case I'm not prepared to condemn her on the basis of just the information that the media's journalists have provided. I will leave that to others with more information than I have. I am not at all surprised that the FBI has concluded that there was nothing to prosecute. It is exactly as I predicted, based on the admittedly meager information publicly accessible. Naturally I discount the politically biased commentary on both sides and opinions clearly driven by ideology without anything substantive as to facts behind it.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

A key phrase in Comey's remarks that bears out what I have been saying all along is: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
While technically correct it would have been nice to see our law enforcement look to set precedent rather than look for it, considering we're about to elect this person for the highest office in the land. Knowing that there are levels of competence which are expected for said position would be helpful. As it is, there is no apparent level of negligence/incompetence which would disqualify a candidate. At least not this particular candidate.The race to the bottom continues.

In fact there was a very similar case. The main difference was the defendant was a Naval Reservist and not the presumptive democrat presidential nominee. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2...ing-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/

If Comey had any integrity, he would admit that. If Hillary had been a mid level State employee, she would be in prison by now. That is pretty obvious. She violated the law, she lied about it, she obstructed justice. Now she will get away with it, thanks to compromised law enforcement officials.

 

[achilles28]

Hillary is guilty. She broke the law. The FBI admits she broke the law. They simply won't charge her. Because they played politics.

 

[conduit]

no charges. And it may come as a surprise to you that it does not matter what you think.

By the way, can I ask a question: If there was a contender when Hitler came to power and that contender should have been charged for something he did wrong but was not charged and by that came to power instead of Hitler what would have been better? Sometimes it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Hillary is guilty. She broke the law. The FBI admits she broke the law. They simply won't charge her. Because they played politics.

 

[Tom B]

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated once again that she lacks the character and judgement to be President.

 

[m1nt]

It's outrageous. Perhaps there is more to it than simple Clinton entitlement though. Imagine that Obama was inconveniently involved and invoked or threatened to invoke executive privilege to scuttle any further federal investigation. Impossible or outrageous? I think not. It will be interesting to see what if anything comes out of the future congressional testimony of Comey.