Now he faces a Congressional probe.
Appropriately, in my opinion. One of the questions asked should be to explain the substantive semantic difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence.” I don’t think most sane speakers of English would think that there is one.
[Update a while later]
Someone once indicted by Comey has some choice words.
\
Seems pretty clear that the "interview" was simply a formality. Comey had already decided what he was going to do. https://t.co/WRZ0zJjZNB
— Apostle To Morons (@Rand_Simberg) July 6, 2016
In fact, I'd argue that Comey was derelict in his duty, given how little time there was between her interview and his pronouncement.
— Apostle To Morons (@Rand_Simberg) July 6, 2016
Congress should demand a release of all transcripts of all interviews, so someone more competent than Comey can evaluate and compare them.
— Apostle To Morons (@Rand_Simberg) July 6, 2016
I'm guessing they could have set a lot of perjury traps for her that they didn't. But we need to see the transcript.
— Apostle To Morons (@Rand_Simberg) July 6, 2016
[Update a couple minutes later]
Comey’s unusual public recommendation:
Comey’s announcement takes the path of the least politicalization. Comey is a former career prosecutor who served twice as a political appointee in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. He is now serving a non-renewable 10-year term as FBI director that expires in 2023. It’s hard to come up with a clear argument for why Comey would be beholden to Clinton or why his recommendation would be politically biased.
While true, that doesn’t change the fact that the fix was clearly in.
[Update a while later]
“I’d rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother in the FBI“:
This has to be very painful to the many hardworking non-political people at the FBI. The Bureau has always had the reputation of employing first-rate worker bees, but suffering from politicized shenanigans at the top. But a fish rots from the head, and it’s hard to see how the sort of high-level assault on the rule of law that Comey’s decision involved can fail to trickle down, with the Bureau’s reputation among Americans in general inevitably, and justifiably, suffering.
The corruption of the federal government is close to complete.
Agree with question about the distinction. Further, Congress has a role in writing the law and a responsibility to check that the Executive faithfully execute those laws. I’m not seeing the law that I read being executed. Prosecutor should use discretion, but to say there is no precedence when no one with this authority has ever been so negligent of their duties seems like bad policy.
Finally, it seems clear from statements made by Huma that Hillary deployed the server to avoid making her records publically available to both FOIA requests and Congressional review. The former is still being worked in federal civil court. The latter is best worked via a Congressional probe.
Prosecutorial discretion is usually over whether the evidence supports a conviction, and less commonly whether the specific act falls under what the law was intended to prohibit. The discretion exercised in this case is another type all together, throughly corrupt.
As I’ve been saying from the first, if the FBI does not recommend indictment there will be no recourse. On the other hand, Comey did provide a lot of useful attack information, many many things that Clinton lied about and was negligent about and incompetent about, and it would be crazy to forego it.
The Trump campaign and its supporters should _not_ be spending their time right now attacking Comey, but using what he said against Clinton.
In fact, I’d argue that Comey was derelict in his duty, given how little time there was between her interview and his pronouncement.
Comey’s duty was to determine whether the FBI could prove that a crime had been committed. He concluded that they couldn’t, based on months of investigation. The agents who interviewed Clinton knew the case forwards and backwards; they knew before they left the room whether she’d said anything that would change that conclusion. Evidently she didn’t — and why would she?
They knew before she entered the room that the fix was in.
What a lazy answer — it explains away any number of inconvenient realities. Do you really want to argue that Comey fixed this case? Just how much of the FBI leadership do you think is implicated? Do you predict that field agents will start leaking about this criminal conspiracy in their ranks?
Occom’s Razor: Comey didn’t recommend any indictments because he didn’t think they could prove any possible charges. It fits what we know about him, and the facts.
Do you really want to argue that Comey fixed this case?
Not by himself. He took his cues from Obama’s endorsement and Lynch’s meeting with the perp’s husband.
Do you predict that field agents will start leaking about this criminal conspiracy in their ranks?
I wouldn’t call it a “criminal conspiracy,” but yes, there will be leaks.
You’re saying that Comey changed his mind about recommending prosecution because Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton talked to Lynch? Really? There’s nothing we know about Comey that supports such a fantasy.
You’re saying that Comey changed his mind about recommending prosecution because Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton talked to Lynch?
You’re saying it was perfectly appropriate for those things to occur during an ongoing investigation and that they couldn’t have influenced it in any way?
I’m saying there’s no sane reason to believe they had any influence on the decision.
Yes, you say lots of insane things.
No, that’s not what their job is, and it isn’t what Comey said. The FBI’s job is to investigate possible crimes and present the evidence to a prosecutor who decides if it’s worth pursuing. Comey didn’t say crimes weren’t committed, he said he didn’t believe a prosecutor would go forward with the case, so he wasn’t going to recommend indictment.
Given the politically charged nature of the case, and the power of the accused, that’s the practical decision. You know as well as I do that nothing less than a video of Hillary selling secrets to the Russians would be needed for any prosecutor to even entertain the idea of going forward. Even then, I suspect folks like you would find a reason to let it go.
He concluded that they couldn’t
Please Jim, quote the passage where Comey made a conclusion. I think you might find that the only time he said the FBI concluded anything, it was that evidence did exist, but there is more to it that you should read and quote to back up your preposterous claim.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
He didn’t even claim that there was evidence of violations, full stop.
Although there is evidence of potential violations
That is from your quote. If you read the rest of his statement, he lays out the evidence for violations without the qualifier of potential.
After all, a trial is needed to determine for him to say there were violations, until then he would have to use words like alleged.
our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
This is the crux of his statement. It wasn’t that Hillary didn’t break any laws but rather that the FBI doesn’t think she would be prosecuted by Obama’s DOJ. That is the truth, Obama’s DOJ is corrupt just like the rest of the administration and just like Crooked Hillary.
Saying a corrupt DOJ wouldn’t charge her isn’t an exoneration.
He didn’t say that no Obama-supporting prosecutor would bring such a case, but that no “reasonable” prosecutor would. That includes Republicans, independents, and others.
Comey is the kind of guy who makes a big stink when he thinks politics are interfering with enforcement of the laws. If he thought the Lynch DOJ was corrupt, and that Clinton deserved prosecution, he’d have said so.
That includes Republicans, independents, and others.
And yet, many prosecutors have in fact said they would have.
No, he concluded that there was plenty of evidence that a crime was committed and that ordinarily, someone would face punishment for those crimes.
He also correctly concluded that Lynch would not charge her with anything.
When you read the transcript, it is an indictment of the corruption of the Obama administration from the State Department to the DOJ.
Don’t forget, the FBI wasn’t going to court. Lynch was. She is the one that has to determine if she has evidence and then bring charges. Evidence exists, lots of it, so the only reason there are no charges is corruption.
he concluded that there was plenty of evidence that a crime was committed
He said no such thing. He said they found no evidence of intent to commit a crime. He notably did not claim that Clinton’s actions constituted gross negligence, which is the only other way they could have been illegal. He stated that no reasonable prosecutor (not just Lynch) would go to court with the evidence they found.
He notably did not claim that Clinton’s actions constituted gross negligence
Because if he used those words, he would be compelled to indict, so instead he used the synonymous phrase of “extreme carelessness.”
So? If he thought he could prove intent, he would have recommended prosecution. If he thought he could prove gross negligence, he would have recommended prosecution. Why wouldn’t he?
You can’t seem to face the fact that the evidence for a criminal charge simply wasn’t there (as predicted months ago).
Why wouldn’t he?
Because as we saw in Whitewater, it’s impossible to convict a Clinton; there will always be a juror who will hang the jury.
My apologies to Rand: I was wrong. In his testimony today Comey seemed to indicate that he ruled out recommending prosecution on the “gross negligence” language not necessarily because he didn’t think he could prove it, but because there’s only been one such prosecution in the last century (I’d love to know when that was), and to do so in this case would be subjecting Clinton to a double standard.
That’s not a valid legal reason; what she did was unprecedented. Beyond that, the notion that there was no intent was ludicrous, as Gowdy showed.
He said no such thing.
He literally laid out a long list of evidence of crimes committed. These were all intentional acts, it was impossible for them to happen without intent.
He stated that no reasonable prosecutor (not just Lynch)
Lynch is the one who is making the call here. This was rigged just like the Democrat primary.
These were all intentional acts, it was impossible for them to happen without intent.
Comey’s words: “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information”
Let me help you via the FBI:
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. ”
So let’s read the law: “(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.”
Comey explicitly stated the evidence and the conclusion that the FBI found that she very likely violated this law.
This: “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws” is section 793D of the law, and people are prosecuted for it all the time, such as Bradley Manning, General Petraeus, John Deutch, and currently Kristian Saucier (he’s actually section 793E). What Comey suggested was people are not prosecuted for Gross Negligence, although it is a crime. Hillary was not exonerated of any wrong doing, and she can very well be charged under US Code 18 Section 793F.
I’m old enough to remember when the Obama administration had “zero tolerance” for the mishandling of classified information.
But Jim thinks it’s just great. Because it’s not some war hero, it’s HIS hero.
Every year on or about the Fourth of July I like to read about the American Revolution, mainly because the attitude of the rebels toward their Ruling Class provides a refreshing contrast to the servility you see in the US today, especially among the State-fellators I call “the New Tories.” This year I’ve been reading Nathaniel Philbrick’s BUNKER HILL (so far, very good) and it was interesting to me, reading about the Tories in and around Boston at the time of the Tea Party and the armed rebellion that would follow, how much they reminded me of Baghdad Jim, in their obsequiousness and misplaced loyality to the Crown and its minions.
Interesting:
http://www.thelasttradition.com/2016/07/wait-damn-minute-fbi-proves-hillary.html
One mistake both sides are making is the notion Hillary was exonerated. She was not. And besides what steps Congress could and may take; there is also a civil case ongoing. Huma already testified and the decision to compel Hillary to testify in the civil case has not been made.
Also note the referral that Comey responded was clarified at the beginning only to be about handling of classified data. The issue regarding retention of records is still being tried in the civil courts, but I repeat myself.
Supposedly there is also an investigation into the Clinton Foundation pay for play but I haven’t seen anything recent about that.
“Supposedly”.
Another look back at the way this story has been discussed here:
I think everyone is assuming that Hillary won’t be indicted (or at least that the FBI won’t recommend that she should be) because it is simply politically unthinkable. Well, maybe, with Lynch in charge, but if she fails to indict for all of the obvious crimes, you can count on a steady drip of leaks right up to elections day. Maybe with Comey resigning in protest a month or so before the election. I’ll bet that the FBI now has all of the deleted emails, and I’ll bet there’s a lot in there, including obvious quid pro quo with regard to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps a lot of clear payoffs from inimical governments. — Rand, 12/10/15
No leaks, or resignation, at least so far. It’s pretty clear you lost that bet — Comey didn’t even mention public corruption.
“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said. — Rand, 1/11/2016
Apparently nothing incriminating was found.
Basically, it starts with the massive mishandling of confidential and classified information, which has resulted in multiple counts of obstruction of justice. And a large part of the reason for all of the obstruction of justice was to hide all of the collusion and corruption between the Clinton Foundation and foreign nations while she was Secretary of State. — Rand, 1/11/2016
And yet the FBI only found carelessness.
If all this fades away with no result, I am going to acknowledge those who think that Fox is worthless. — MikeR, 1/11/16
Fox is worthless.
Fox has no better reporter than Catherine Herridge. She rarely, if ever, gets it wrong. — Rand, 1/11/16
Maybe just this once.
He [Pagliano] is reportedly a “devastating witness” in the Hillary email case. Setting up a perjury trap for Hillary. — Rand, 3/13/16
It turns out, not all that devastating.
The one email that may be the smoking gun that proves she violated the Espionage Act. — Rand, 3/13/16
Or may not be.
Beyond that, of course, she’s under investigation for public corruption. The FBI is putting together the entire chain, with Pagliano’s help, that will almost certainly show some quid pro quos with foreign governments in exchange for donations to the foundation. — Rand, 3/13/16
“Almost” certainly.
Conclusion: as enjoyable as it may be to entertain these fantasies, wishing won’t make them real. Something to keep in mind the next time the right wing media tries to convince you that some Democrat is going to be ruined by the scandal du jour.
Comey didn’t even mention public corruption.
Because that wasn’t the topic of this particular speech. It was purely about the legality of the server and handling of classified materials.
Comey closed the book on recommending criminal charges based on what was found in her emails, full stop. But you’re really going to hold onto the fantasy that they’re still working on building a public corruption case? As Donald Trump would say, sad!
No, he didn’t. That’s a separate investigation. But keep whistling past that graveyard.
Prediction: no charges will ever be filed against Hillary Clinton based on evidence found in emails from the server she used while Secretary of State.
Prediction: no charges will ever be filed against Hillary Clinton
Yeah, many people, including Rand, already made that prediction in regards to the Obama Administration. It’s not that hard of a call considering the corruption Obama has allowed in his Administration.
Jim, you kept repeating Hillary’s lies and the FBI investigation showed they were all lies. That she won’t be charged by Obama’s DOJ doesn’t magically mean she didn’t lie.
She had numerous devices. She destroyed emails. She set up more than one illegal server. She transmitted classified information. She stripped classification markers from media. She took unsecure devices into secured areas. She used unsecure devices and systems while in foreign territory, meaning she gave foreign governments unfettered access to her emails and whatever else was on the servers.
This is all stuff straight from the FBI that contradicts Hillary’s public statements.
She had numerous devices.
Not a crime.
She destroyed emails.
Comey said they found no reason to believe that any work emails were deliberately destroyed to hide them from investigators.
She set up more than one illegal server.
The servers weren’t illegal, just ill-advised.
She transmitted classified information.
Without criminal intent, as had her predecessors.
She stripped classification markers from media
Comey made no mention of that.
She took unsecure devices into secured areas.
Comey didn’t mention that either.
She used unsecure devices and systems while in foreign territory, meaning she gave foreign governments unfettered access to her emails and whatever else was on the servers.
Not unfettered — they still had to hack her. And, for that matter, we know that foreign governments hacked the official State Department system.
This is all stuff straight from the FBI that contradicts Hillary’s public statements.
Clinton has made inaccurate public statements, and in a number of cases subsequently walked them back. Doing so isn’t admirable, but it also isn’t criminal. I don’t know if there’s ever been a presidential nominee who hasn’t made untruthful public statements; it’s certainly no reason to prefer Donald Trump!
“She had numerous devices.”
Not a crime.
But she LIED about it. She LIED about every effing thing, just like she did in the 90s.
But I guess for people like you, that’s a feature. It’s like taqiya in Islam. Let’s make her president!
And she potentially lied about it to Congress, and she can still be called to testify in the civil trial that is still ongoing.
A variation on “the Costanza Defense”*–see:
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2016/07/cartoon-of-the-day-defense-2/
*”Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell ya, I gotta plead ignorance here . . . “
Congress should demand a release of all transcripts of all interviews, so someone more competent than Comey can evaluate and compare them.
Wow. So Comey is incompetent?
Why not ask the FBI to release transcripts of all interviews in all their cases? I’m sure that would advance the cause of law enforcement, not to mention citizens’ privacy.
Why not ask the FBI to release transcripts of all interviews in all their cases?
Because most of their cases don’t involve a politically powerful politician with the appearance that the fix was in?
with the appearance that the fix was in?
We should make public policy based on politically-motivated delusions?
By that logic the FBI would have to release transcripts of any interview with anyone in government, because you’ll always be able to find crazies on the other side who think the fix is in. Don’t you think Michael Moore wants to know what Dick Cheney told the FBI about Plame? What Christie told investigators about BridgeGate?
We should make public policy based on politically-motivated delusions?
No.
By that logic the FBI would have to release transcripts of any interview with anyone in government, because you’ll always be able to find crazies on the other side who think the fix is in.
It’s not crazy in this case. Even Democrats have said the optics are terrible. And not “anyone in government.” Anyone who is about to become Commander-in-Chief and has demonstrated criminal behavior disqualifying for the office yet is let off the legal hook for it. Congress should demand to see them as part of oversight.
has demonstrated criminal behavior disqualifying for the office
There you go again, assuming the conclusion. The reason for an investigation is to find out if someone demonstrated criminal behavior that can be proved in a court of law. The FBI did not conclude that Clinton had. You don’t like their conclusion, so you insult the competence and integrity of the FBI, and whine for a do-over. It’s sore-loserism, plain and simple.
The FBI did not conclude that Clinton had.
As in Whitewater, they concluded that they didn’t have sufficient evidence to be confident of a conviction. But I know you’ll continue to lie and call this an “exoneration.”
Maybe do it because the Obama administration is the Most Transparent in the History of Mankind.
I can hear you laughing from across the country.
You would think that Obama would be upset that Hillary violated his campaign promise to be transparent. I guess that’s another of Obama’s lies that bothers Jim, but not enough to stop his ignorant defense of Obama and Hillary.
This is what passes for journalism in our country.
Have you ever seen such shoddy reporting? Clearly, more things are rigged than refusing to charge Hillary with the crimes everyone knows she committed.
“Appropriately, in my opinion. One of the questions asked should be to explain the substantive semantic difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence.” I don’t think most sane speakers of English would think that there is one.”
Silly rabbit, one of these gets the other member of the Clinton Crime Cartel indicted, one helps her get elected. Big Difference.
My standing theory is that the government (NSA, whatever) has the ability to plant material on your computer. Such as kiddie porn, for example.
I picture the following exchange:
“Go home, turn on your computer, and tell me what you see.
Want to make it go away? Then play ball with us.
Or you can go to pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Your choice.”
Looks like Hillary lied to Congress. Scooter Libby was prosecuted for just lying to a Prosecutor that never prosecuted the original crime he was reportedly investigating. I’m thinking Libby was a subject like 99% of us, and not part of the 1% that can commit crimes and not suffer any consequences.
” ‘If all this fades away with no result, I am going to acknowledge those who think that Fox is worthless. — MikeR, 1/11/16’
Fox is worthless.”
Wow, amazing. Now that we know (and have known for more than a month) that Fox was right about everything, as attested by the IG report and dozens of mainstream media links. And Jim has _nothing_ but the fact that the FBI thinks that they can’t get a conviction. Did you imagine that when I said “no result” it meant, anything but Clinton behind bars?
Amazing. I am a little awed at someone who is so determined to see things in a certain way, come what may.
The context of your comment was this Fox claim:
To date there has been no result to indicate that any such expansion of the investigation took place.
Except for the fact that he refused to comment about it under oath this morning.