╌>

Editorial Opinion: The FBI became a political Entity in July, Not October. By Bruce Tarleton

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  bruce-tarleton  •  8 years ago  •  26 comments

Editorial Opinion:  The FBI became a political Entity in July, Not October.  By Bruce Tarleton

“Americans now look at the FBI and see a political entity, not a nonpartisan entity — and that has huge ramifications for the FBI and for all of us,” said Matt Miller, former chief spokesman for the Justice Department and a Clinton supporter. “It sows disbelief in our system of government and is hugely toxic.”

That's a quote from a Washington Post article about the FBI and a recent release of the investigation into Bill Clinton and the pardon of Marc Rich. Well. Allow me to pontificate.

That statement, uttered in connection with events of the past few days, could easily refer to the announcement of FBI Director Comey that there would not be an indictment of Hillary Clinton following the initial investigation of her email fiasco. The simple fact is, Justice died that day, and the FBI became the laughing stock of the free world. Indeed, the Bill Clinton/Lynch meeting on the tarmac that preceded that announcement did more to solidify in the minds of many Americans that the Justice Department was anything if not biased. THAT has sown disbelief in our system of government, and is hugely toxic.

Several insiders have let it be known that the FBI went into turmoil following that announcement. So much so that Comey was blatantly ignored in the hallways of FBI headquarters. CLEARLY, within the FBI organization, agents and mid level supervisors felt that the actions of Director Comey and AG Lynch smacked too much of political partisanship.

The bottom line is, she broke the law.  She violated security protocols and rules, and Comey let her walk.  THIS is where the FBI, and the Justice Department showed themselves as a political entity.

When an investigation clearly uncovered violations of Federal Law, but no indictment was made, the Left praised the FBI, and Comey for "doing his job". But now that more evidence has been uncovered and the investigation reopened, it's political bias.

Let's hope that the ensuing investigation rights the wrong that clearly tarnished the FBI's reputation. Failure to do so will forever show the FBI and Justice Department as political pawns.

 

Red Box Rules:  Any reference to Hillary Clinton must be preceded with "The Criminal"...


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   seeder  Uncle Bruce    8 years ago

Red Box Rules:  Any reference to Hillary Clinton must be preceded with "The Criminal"...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah    8 years ago

The Criminal will become president, precisely because her opponent is Donald Trump.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    8 years ago

It's  become clear over the last few months as the FBI did their Friday afternoon doc dumps detailing the special and unprecedented kid glove treatment they gave Clinton that the investigation was a sham. Wanton grants of immunity, allowing participants in the scheme to act as lawyers for other participants, and refusing to employ the evidence gathering techniques they used against politicians with an R next to their name, like Bob McDonnell demonstrated how thoroughly the FBI rolled over. 

The FBI is an investigative unit. Comey had no business deciding how a statute should be interpreted,. But the head of the DOJ had embarrassed herself when her secret meeting with  President Clinton was revealed so  Comey stepped in to save the administration and and gave the public announcement of the decision  not to prosecute the appearance of independence. The FBI has been politicized and tarnished since it's involvement started. So it goes with everything that comes into contact with the Criminal. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy   8 years ago

The FBI is an investigative unit. Comey had no business deciding how a statute should be interpreted,

Pitiful. James Comey was " the United States Deputy Attorney General from December 2003 to August 2005. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department." wikipedia

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Wow. Now you think people get people retain their power from past jobs? Can George Bush order the invasion of Syria since he used to be President?

Comey was the head of the FBI when he made the decision, not the Deputy Attorney General. No wonder you constantly support ignoring the Constitution in favor of the ends you desire. You don't care who makes a decision, the basis for it or even the evidence behind it, so it long as it supports the Democrats.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy   8 years ago

Comey was qualified to evaluate the evidence and make a prosecutorial decision.  You know that.   Why all the nonsense?

 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

He was not authorized to interpret the statute. Stop the shameful cover up.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Cerenkov   8 years ago

 

He was not authorized to interpret the statute. Stop the shameful cover up.

Interpreting the statute seems to be part and parcel of a decision by the attorney general that she would rely on his recommendation to charge Hillary under the espionage act. Maybe Lynch shouldn't have weaseled out of her own responsibility but she did.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany    8 years ago

I initially disagreed with Comey's decision not to recommend prosecution (mostly because I'd like to see the rat trapped). However, once I read the law more carefully and looked at precedent, I changed my mind and agreed with him (even though it let the rat go free). To me, his decision was based entirely on his assessment of the law, not politics.

His recent decision to amend his statement before congress (that the investigation was closed) is based entirely on his obligation to avoid misleading congress. Comey stumbled across new emails that Huma should have disclosed earlier. Once he had those emails, he needed a warrant to read them. To get a warrant, he needs to say that he's investigating something which, in turn, compels him to correct the statement before congress that the matter is closed. Apparently, many people have no problem lying and misleading congress but Comey chooses not to be one of them. Good for him . . . an honest man trying to swim in a sea of scoundrels.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    8 years ago

The bottom line is, she broke the law.  She violated security protocols and rules, and Comey let her walk.  THIS is where the FBI, and the Justice Department showed themselves as a political entity.

When an investigation clearly uncovered violations of Federal Law, but no indictment was made,

 

The right has long been trying to CREATE reality through repetition in the way they talk about this case. They want everyone to agree , from the sheer strain of hearing the same thing over and over, that "Clinton is guilty of a crime"  is the default position.

 

I am going to quote passages from just two of the MANY articles, many of them written by legal experts, who said prior to the July announcement that Clinton should not and would not be indicted.

-

 

“There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. “This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.”

Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly — absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions."

 

"There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924 , a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to “knowingly remove” classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

...there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.

 

Another possible prosecutorial avenue involves the Espionage Act. Section 793(d) makes it a felony if a person entrusted with “information relating to the national defense” “willfully communicates, delivers [or] transmits” it to an unauthorized person. That might be a stretch given the “willfully” requirement.

...The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “ nebulous ” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-hillary-clinton-is-unlikely-to-be-indicted-over-her-private-email-server/2016/03/08/341c3786-e557-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?utm_term=.d7b5f019584c

 

"Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state has been a nagging campaign issue for months. Critics have argued that the most serious problem is possible transmission of classified information through that server. Many of her former top aides have sought legal counsel. But experts in national-security law say there may be less here than it might appear.

 

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.

Informal back channels existed long before e-mail. One former State Department official recalled the days when most embassies overseas had only a few phones authorized for secret communications. Rather than go to the executive office to make such a call, officers would use their regular phones, bypassing any truly sensitive details. “Did we cross red lines? No doubt. Did it put information at risk? Maybe. But, if you weren’t in Moscow or Beijing, you didn’t worry much,” this former official said.

Back channels are used because the official ones are so encrusted by classification and bureaucracy. State had the “Roger Channel,” named after former official Roger Hilsman , for sending secret messages directly to the secretary. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had a similar private channel. CIA station chiefs could send communications known as “Aardwolves” straight to the director.

Are these channels misused sometimes? Most definitely. Is there a crime here? Almost certainly not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html?utm_term=.5db9b165c247

 

Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody?” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.

In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and over-broad. The answer was no only because:

 

“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same). Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.

Furthermore, ”gross negligence” as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as:

 

“A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”

As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal :

 

“Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”

That is another critical point here. This Espionage Law clearly was never intended to address a Secretary of State using — foolishly or even improperly to maintain her privacy — a personal email server to send and receive emails. Inevitably, this novel use of the law would leave a political stink. Efforts to compare this situation to other cases that have been prosecuted also fail on the facts.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

I have said for the past year. If you don't like Hillary Clinton  and believe she broke the law, don't vote for her.

 

But to say it is OBVIOUS she should have been prosecuted and Comey let her go for political reasons, is a dirty lie based on what we heard BEFORE the decision.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

This Espionage Law clearly was never intended to address a Secretary of State using — foolishly or even improperly to maintain her privacy — a personal email server to send and receive emails. 

And it is largely this point that mad enough me change my mind. I don't think we should be dragging a former Secretary of State through the streets to burn her at the stake for something this flimsy (even if it's a rat like Hillary). 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  1ofmany   8 years ago

The precedent of the Espionage Act requires "bad faith" on the part of the subject. Comey found, as did legal experts that reviewed the facts prior to Comey's decision, that there was no bad faith on Clinton's part.

People can disagree with Comey, but to say that it was "obvious" that should have been indicted is just not supported by the facts.

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   seeder  Uncle Bruce  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Comment removed for CoC violation[ph]  See my comment at the bottom Comment removed for CoC violation[ph]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Uncle Bruce   8 years ago

I know the truth and the facts make you go nuts Bruce, so I won't report your COC violation. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   seeder  Uncle Bruce  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

I've lost all respect for you John.  You know why?  Because you're a Clinton Whore.  Jesus Christ himself could come down from the Heavens, slap you in the face and tell you she's guilty under the current US Statutes, and you still wouldn't believe it.

I don't care what you think of Trump. I don't give a shit that you think he is the Devil in the flesh.  The mere fact that you have brainwashed yourself to ignore the corruption and criminality of the Clinton Cartel tells me all I need to know about you. 

Tell me you support Bernie Sanders.  Tell me you support Jill Stein.  Tell me you support Gary Johnson.  Anyone but Clinton. 

You support Clinton because you think Trump will be bad for the country.  I support Trump because I KNOW Clinton will be devastating to the country.  You want to know the difference between the two?  Trump will surround himself with people who will help him govern.  Hillary will surround herself with people who will pay her Cartel.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Thanks for posting a more thorough assessment from the legal community. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

1. Your "expert" Clinton donors make the point that her critics are arguing. The law itself calls for a gross negligence standard.  In order to avoid prosecuting CLinton, the  FBI adopted adopted an interpretation that changes the level of intent required by the actual text of the law.  None of this is debatable.

Comey's an interpretation that is not supported by the text of the law or any judicial description that interprets the statute at issue. It's not the job of the FBI to overrule Congress by changing the plain meaning of statutes. 

So like with any other statute, if you  make a statute's plain language subject to revisionist interpretation, then the law  is arbitrary and capricious. 

2. As Trey Gowdy demonstrated, even if you apply the FBI's interpretation, there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that she acted intentionally. The whole point of the server stored in a bathroom was to allow her to do her job while avoiding legal oversight.  It's impossible for her to do her job without handling classified information. Her cover up and lies are further evidence the FBI usually uses to show intent. Criminals don't  announce their intent to act criminally.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy   8 years ago

Sean, I don't really want to belabor the obvious, but the fact is that numerous legal experts with specialty in these kinds of cases wrote articles well before Comey made his decision saying that she would not be indicted, giving as the reasons the very arguments that Comey himself later used. There was NOTHING surprising about it. 

It is EXTREMELY disingenuous for the right to now constantly whine about how obvious it always was that Clinton is guilty. 

It has never been obvious. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

 There was NOTHING surprising about it.

On that we agree. I predicted how it would play out months before Comey spoke, there was no possible chance the Obama administration would ever prosecute her. Anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention to this administration knew that it would never let the wording of a statute get in the way of Obama's desires. It was never a legal question with this administration. 

 

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy   8 years ago

It was never a question with most of the legal community either. 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    8 years ago

Here's something I haven't heard anyone say about the emails on Huma's computer that Weiner was using.

Received emails are stored wherever the email program is set up.  For example, if I receive an email, it is stored on my mobile phone and computer, because I have my email account on both of them, so I would suspect Weiner put her email program on his computer, so every time she received an email it was recorded on her computer as well as his computer.  It is not actually stored on the computer or phone, but on the web and that is why when you buy a new phone you don't have to transfer all your emails, just set up the old account on the new phone and it works the same for the computer.

So in other words if someone knows your password and your account name, they can set your email account up on their computer and receive the same emails you receive.

Now for the outgoing emails from her computer, this is not necessarily true, at least not initially.  Just because she sent out an email from her computer, his computer doesn't record that email on his computer necessarily.

I may be entirely wrong, but it would seem I'm not.  It would seem I could give you my account name and password, you set it up on your computer, phone or both and all of a sudden you would have access to all my emails.

The pervert was snooping on her, when in fact she should have been snooping on him.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  sixpick   8 years ago

I hope no one tries to indict you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    8 years ago

 

Here's the new head of the DOJ investigation providing his friend John Podesta, a heads up about upcoming oversight testimony.

Some independent investigator. What a joke the DOJ is. 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   seeder  Uncle Bruce    8 years ago

Title 18 US Code 798, subsection (f):

(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

through gross negligence

 

through gross negligence

 

through gross negligence

 

through gross negligence

 

You fucking dumbasses.  NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE INTENT!!!!!  COMEY WAS WRONG TO THROW INTENT INTO THE EQUATION. 

FOR YOU FUCKING IDIOTS WHO CAN'T COMPREHEND NEGLIGENCE, AND LACK OF INTENT...look up negligent homicide.

Examples include the crash of Aeroperu Flight 603 near Lima, Peru. The accident was caused by a piece of duct tape that was accidentally left over the static ports (on the bottom side of the fuselage) after cleaning the aircraft, which led to the crash. Employee Eleuterio Chacaliaza left the tape on by accident [1] and was charged with negligent homicide.

I saw half a dozen sailors in my career get busted for negligence with respect to classified information.  NOT A ONE OF THEM INTENDED TO BE NEGLIGENT, OR MISHANDLE CLASSIFIED INFO.

You fucknuckles who have never signed a NATIONAL SECURITY AGREEMENT, Shut the Fuck Up. 

She's fucking guilty, and is a Criminal.

 
 
 
Moonchild63
Freshman Silent
link   Moonchild63    8 years ago

Reposted from blog of same title:

Wow!

The SEC can Only level a Fine, no matter the Malfeasance

& the Malfeasance at the raw and bloody end of the former administration (HISTORICALLY known for their political/philosophical Biases) of George W. Bush (obviouslyclose call Still gets a pass by some)

The President pardons - it is part of the job & many have made some interesting choices & it is not really a - discussion!

Hillary Clinton is not Bill and the Bias of a Party that Pouts about hummmpff "race" has got to be kidding when they feign any freaking thing, let alone on behalf of FBI for not actively participating in political Witch Hunts - July - then second bite at the judicially disturbing apple

(never mind the hypocritical politicking)

is not beneath the  Juggernaut of Purity - period! Secret meetings, obstruction, changed job description & outright sedition (incitement & defamatory) really!

So Please tell me how the FBI, Republicans ('angry' not 'angry') or any one since last (now two ago) Friday forgot the conversation that was Actually focused on

the viability of the man Republicans' front - being Sane, let alone Qualified for the Presidency!

Predator looks good on - no ones Resume! Pffft

The FBI, CIA & the Republican party that has existed since Strom crossed allegiances & aisle's -  on principles odd in the 21st century & being espoused by Congress's since January, 2009.

Wasted tax dollars for a witch hunt that nets Nothing because the former President's pardons are sacrosanct - Ask

Rove, Libby or the EPA fines of the Koch brothers' (who just happened to poison a town of what Repub's would call " minority" or "unsavory" is All ya'll)

I loathe a bigot, coward, duplicitous, indifferent, ignart individual, yet Hypocrites really chaff.

Perhaps it is their

"Do as I say, not as I do" attitude!

Casino Jack, Valerie Plame & her husband Joseph Wilson, the War that didn't have to happen, the lame FBI higher ups that branded John O'Neill (see the "Man who Knew on PBS) "too much of a maverick" when he was determined to follow the Al quada money & track whoever

"this Osama Bin Laden was!?"

John was heroic up to the last working in NYC - in the very place he told the FBI was vulnerable when they unBiased him out of his much loved job as an agent!

& ornery that I am, I saved the best for last -

J. Edgar Hoover the most dastardly FBI had to offer talk - about your Apolitico lacking in 'all' biases (political or otherwise)

* there I did it with a straight face & you gotta Drink!laughing dude talk to the hand 2

Just saw a one of those election commercial slander, libel bits, but not a peep regarding the Little girl raped as a child, 

Wonder what the FBI's position on sexual predators of children is -

Mr. Issa, Speaker Ryan!? Mr. Issa is that a Witch Dr.'s costume!?😮😵🐑

 
 

Who is online


fineline
CB


53 visitors