FBI Director James Comey Confirmed That Everything Republicans Have Been Saying About Hillary’s Email Is True
Most of the conservative blogosphere is bashing the FBI right now for not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton, and there's definitely some fairness in that complaint. Obviously, what Clinton did was a good deal more reckless than what Scooter Libby or any number of other people have done. Nonetheless, there was never any real chance that Clinton would face criminal prosecution because the DOJ is still controlled by Obama, who has endorsed Clinton for President. And yes, that is evidence of a corrupt system.
It's especially galling when Comey basically spent 10 minutes carefully explaining how Hillary Clinton did, in fact, violate the law with respect to the storage and transfer of classified material, but that he wasn't recommending criminal charges anyway. I have no doubt in my mind after watching this press conference that he was specifically ordered not to recommend charges. However, I DO think that he decided to make life as difficult as possible for Clinton on the way out the door.
Here he is explaining how the basic crux of Republicans' complaint about Clinton's behavior with respect to the server was absolutely correct:
Comey: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information .
For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret, special access program, at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters, and receiving emails about those matters . There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation .
In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email. That is excluding any later upclassified emails .
None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system. But their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government, or even with a commercial email service like GMail .
I think it's also important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the emails here (note: not zero, as Clinton has claimed) containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject of the matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
This is as total of a denial of Clinton's position with respect to the email scandal that anyone could possibly muster. And it confirms that what Republicans have been saying about the server, and the carelessness with which Clinton set up this whole scheme, was exactly right. The final shiv at the end was when Comey suggested that Clinton basically ought to have her security clearance revoked. He was just prevented from actually charging her because of who his boss is.
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
Since the other post on the topic seems to have disappeared.
Yeah, they don't really want to talk about it too much, they just want the whole thing to die away so it won't effect the election. I think that the LWNJ's are going to be disappointed about that. It's not going to die away. It will be publicized, A LOT.
It's a complete vindication of the conservative position and a rejection of the left's spin (including the apologists here). Further, the lack of any indictment is further confirmation of the corruption of our current regime.
Former Federal Prosecutor McCarthy demonstrates how Comey had to rewrite the Statute book to avoid prosecuting her:
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. P eople 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. I t 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.
Read more at:
If she is not above the law, change it.
She will always be above the law, no matter what those laws are. No one should be surprised by this outcome; it was inevitable.
Yep, no surprise here.
I wonder what's going to happen to Mr. Comey now. Obviously, if Trump is elected, he will be called in and fired for cause. What will happen, however, if Hillary is elected? I've noticed that people who are no longer useful to Hillary Clinton and who might later talk too much have a tendency to "commit suicide".
Clinton's already signaled last week while the DOJ was considering the case that she wants Lynch to stay on if she wins. How's that for a conflict of interest?
I'm sure Comey's truth telling means he has no chance to keep his job once his term expires. But since he didn't publicly call her for her indictment, I think he fades away quietly.
Here's all of the constantly evolving talking points from the Clinton camp exposed as lies by Comey:
No classified info: lie
Allowed by State: lie
Turned over all work emails: lie
Wanted a single device: lie
Never breached: lie
No classified markings on the emails: lie
Never sent any classified emails: lie
This is pretty good.
Honestly, did anyone every think Hillary was going to be prevented from becoming President because of these emails?
Oh yes, she broke the law and it doesn't even have to be intentional, but it doesn't make any difference.
I feel really sorry for you Americans because when it is time to cast your ballot you have a real dilemma on your hands. First of all, it is the right thing to vote because if en mass you don't you will most likely lose that right, and secondly it is a problem to decide which is the least worst alternative.
Voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is the only way to solve the dilemma.
Maybe so, but Ralph Nader (and I can't remember that other guy's name who once gave it a shot) didn't have a chance nor do I think Johnson or Stein have a chance as well. Americans are more loyal to their parties than being concerned with the issues.
Buzz , that was Perot, think he got 3% of the vote .
If I remember correctly a party needs to get at least 15% of the vote to get matching federal campaign funding in the next election.
Thanks for the info, Mark.
Sean,
Neither of those two are going to get over 10% of the vote, no matter how bad the other two are. If it looked like their parties had any chance at all of being a contender, one, the other or both of the major parties would have undercut them at the State level and had the candidates removed from the ballot, in all probability, using some arcane rule that was passed 50 or 60 years ago and ignored until it was needed.
Ever since both of the major parties got the crap scared out of them in 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt almost did it, the major parties have worked together whenever necessary to ensure that the real choices (the ones that can actually win) are limited to the two major parties. The small parties can cause one or the other of the major party candidates to lose (which one depends on whose voters are lured away), but they would never be allowed to actually win themselves. It's not a matter of caring more for your party than for a multi party democracy. It is a matter of not wasting a vote on a candidate who will never stand any chance of winning, no matter how good the candidate is.
I don't disagree. I just think 15-20% will vote for a third party in protest of the choices available.
15 or 20% does not win. The objective of participating in an election is not to make political points (the Republicans did that from 1954 until 1982 and it got them nowhere) but to win and gain the power to actually do something.
The political purists in the mainstream Republican Party; by refusing to compromise with Trump and stalking off to a small party, staying home or even voting for Hillary, are the ones who will put Hillary in the White House. You can bet that the Sanders people will hold their noses and vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is rather than let Trump win by default. They're a lot more realistic than the mainstream Republicans.
It's ironic that you're concerned about Americans' voting rights while you live in China.
Yes but he watches CNN.
No I don't, and I very rarely read their postings on the internet.
"It's ironic that you're concerned about Americans' voting rights while you live in China."
If you have seen all that I post on NT, you would know that my interests are not limited. I have a world view, and am concerned about civilization as a whole, and interested in the manifestations of it. If I have concerns about what is happening in the USA it's probably increased because my son and his family live there, and as a Canadian I am concerned about the effects it has on my native land. Presently living in China has little to do with those things.
I only said I found it ironic.
Okay okay - I'm not being critical of your comment, I'm only explaining why the American election IS of interest and of some importance to me. Please don't be offended. Others may want to see that explanation.
I'm not offended Buzz. I have a lot of respect for you.
Just think about it for a minute. These are Chicago Lawyers. That in itself say a whole lot, but let's say we, somebody, or a group of people wanted to challenge this decision by the FBI. The election would be long gone before we even went to court the first time.
This isn't an election, it's a selection and get use to it, because there will be a crisis not long into her 1st term and you'll have to unload some of that money you worked so hard for all those years.
Vote for Trump or the kid gets it
John Poderhertz picked out this quote from the Great Gatsby to describe the CLintons and it's spot on:
"I recalled F. Scott Fitzgerald’s peerless description in “The Great Gatsby” of a feckless wealthy couple: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into . . . their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
That's the Clintons in a nutshell. Throwing our country into chaos in reckless pursuit of their own desires.
The partisan Republicans are going to blow this with their idiotic conspiracy theories and their predictable overreactions. We can all be thankful for that.
Does it bother you peddled lies for a year?
You are a disturbed right wing fanatic.
Is that the lie HRC is telling you to use today? Do you get an email detailing the lies she'd like you to promote each day?
It's a mailing list.
The conspiracy theories surrounding this all turned out to be true. The Hag is guilty and there is no longer any doubt.
Exactly. The useful idiots defending Hillary have been shown to be either woefully ignorant or pathological liars.
True story - Gene - you, Fly and Spike can understand this.
As a LTjg in the CG, I was the CSO for the Marine Safety Office and had a TS/NATO clearance. One of my duties was to destroy classified material in accordance with applicable laws and instructions. We stored our classified material in a vault that had triple-door closure and only four people were ever granted access to that room - our CO, XO, the assistant CSO and I.
One day I, per instructions, burned a TS document, completed all the required paperwork, and went to obtain the certification signature from the CO. He asked that I leave the forms with him and he'd call me when completed.
An hour later, I was called into his office and was met by the CO, XO and JAG and was informed that my security clearance was being temporarily suspended until CG JAG completed their investigation. I asked "investigation for what - Sir?" He replied that I had improperly destroyed a classified document by burning it FIVE MINUTES BEFORE the specified time.
After a three month investigation, my security clearance was re-instated but I was re-assigned as the OIC of the Safety Office's Marine Defense Ops and was only to handle classified material on a "need-to-know" basis. The CG JAG office in DC stated that there was no harm/violation, but congratulated the CO for his "rapid" response to a potential security breach.
The CO was striking for two things - conviction, reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge - which JAG said could not be substantiated.
During the CO's "investigation", he made the comment to one of his Senior Officers that he was going to "scalp that little S.O.B. Redskin" - which no one would substantiate.
The LT promotion board met four months later - and I was passed over. The following year, the board met - and I was passed over again and received an Honorable Discharge from the CG. The reason for the two pass overs???? Inappropriately handling of Classified Material as listed in my fitness report.
And Billary is running for President??????