Case studies Part I: why the Comey announcement was so shocking
It’s a curious thing that yesterday’s Comey statement was shocking even though it was fully expected by the vast majority of people on the right. Although we didn’t know exactly how Comey was going to wriggle out of recommending an indictment for Hillary, we knew he probably would. But I think that, had anyone previously thought to carefully poll those who felt this way on the question of their predictions on how it would be done, the vast majority would have said they expected Comey to state that the elements of the crime weren’t there, nothing more to see, move along now.
Instead he delivered a decision with a split personality that made almost no sense to most people. To attempt to parse it is to risk getting a headache, and not just a metaphorical one. The elements of the crime were there, but nevertheless he’s not going to prosecute because…because…most people wouldn’t. Or maybe because some elements were missing that weren’t even required as part of the crime. Or because “similar” cases haven’t been prosecuted, but what those similar cases might be he didn’t see fit to tell us.
To many listeners (and not just those on the right; some Bernie supporters feel this way, too) the Comey speech seemed like blatant hypocrisy, or blatant admission of a judgment that is arbitrary and/or political. It was as though the Supreme Court had handed down a verdict “because we feel like it” or “because we say so.” It wasn’t just that so many listeners didn’t agree with the decision, it’s that Comey’s explanation for it seemed to make no sense.
That was the surprise; the failure to demonstrate an internal consistency/logic in giving reasons for the decision. It was as though Comey either couldn’t be bothered, or wracked his brain to come up with something that sounded good but even his brilliant mind couldn’t quite manage it. He did pretty well in the initial parts, the longer ones he labeled: “what we have done,” and “what we have found.” The fade occurred towards the end, in the much shorter (and yet very important) section “our recommendation to the Department of Justice.”
Tuesday morning, FBI Director James Comey stepped up to a podium and calmly and methodically demolished every single Hillary Clinton lie, spin, and evasion regarding her misuse of classified information. Months of deception blew up in her face. And then Comey decided to make her president of the United States. Rarely have 30 minutes of television so perfectly encapsulated the decline and fall of the rule of law and the extraordinary privileges enjoyed by America’s liberal elite. After listing abuse after abuse ”” and detailing lie after lie ”” Comey declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute Hillary for her obvious and manifest crimes.
I had been trying to avoid writing about this story again today. But I keep gnawing at it, like a dog on an especially tough and gristly bone. And one thing that struck me after a while about that last section is the fact that Comey didn’t cite a single case in his statement. After all, he wrote:
In looking back at our [other] investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases [previously] prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
So it would be extremely helpful to know what cases the FBI has prosecuted involving “mishandling or removal of classified information” under this same statute? Names? Fact situations? Not that it actually matters, because failure to enforce the law in the past doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be enforced now (and Comey made it clear that he retained the right to enforce it in the future). But it makes sense for Comey to let us know which possibly-analogous cases were prosecuted, and even more interestingly, what were the similar cases that were investigated and not prosecuted despite the fact that (as with Hillary Clinton’s use of her server for classified information) they met the elements of the crime as written in the statute. How similar were they?
In other words, please let us poor peons know what you’re talking about. Are there actually cases with similar fact situations, where a Secretary of State or a high-up person similarly trusted with sensitive information decided to set up an entire parallel system to circumvent the secure systems already in place? And it should be a person close enough in time to what happened with Hillary that he or she would be subject to the same rules and regulations concerning an email system in this current age of widespread hacking, terrorism, and the like.
And then if you could be so kind as to tell us the situations in which the FBI investigated such persons, found the elements of the crime present, and dropped the prosecution—well, that would be good to know, too. And let us know exactly what statutes were involved in those investigations because—as of course you are fully aware—there are other statutes that require intent as an element of the crime and some statutes (such as one involved in the Hillary investigation) that do not.
[NOTE: In part II tomorrow, I will offer a summary of the cases that I did find, and what they seem to reveal.]
[ADDENDUM: You might also want to take a look at the AP’s list of false claims Hillary Clinton made about the emails that have “collapsed” as a result of the FBI investigation. Interesting indeed, and not the least because the AP is usually biased to the left side of things. Another relevant article is this one involving Comey’s prosecution of Frank Quattrone:
Quattrone found himself in Comey’s crosshairs and was subject to one of the most frivolous criminal prosecutions in the last twenty years. Comey presided over the decision to indict Quattrone for what was, essentially, an email directing people in his company to comply with a subpoena request.]
Well there is this from my memory and delivered by Pattertico’s Pontifications blog:
Former CIA director John M. Deutch publicly apologized yesterday for mishandling top-secret information on unsecure home computers, saying he never intended to violate security rules and believes none of the information was compromised.
“The director of central intelligence is not above the rules,” a contrite Deutch told reporters after testifying behind closed doors for 2 1/2 hours before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “I very much regret my errors.”
Deutch was about to be prosecuted by DoJ when Bubba Clinton pardoned him.
amr:
I had been planning to mention the Deutsch case tomorrow. It does seem somewhat similar, and yet there was going to be a prosecution.
Problem with the whole topic is that it would take a very lengthy law review-type article to deal with the previous cases. I’m not about to come up with that on the fly! But Comey should have come up with a few paragraphs of the sort, because all that investigation the FBI did probably analyzed many (if not all) of the relevant cases. But he didn’t think he needed to even refer to a single one, despite the fact that he seemed to rest (at least in part) his decision not to prosecute on these other cases.
No effort to obstruct justice? Every single aspect of Hillary’s private email server makes sense only as an effort to obstruct justice, from prevention of oversight, to sabotage of FOIA requests, to the willful destruction of evidence and failure to turn over subpoenaed evidence.
Hell will be crowded.
The subtext of Comey’s speech was; ‘she’s guilty as hell and belongs in prison but… the DOJ’s political motivations guarantee that they’ll use their ‘prosecutorial discretion’ to claim that there’s not a solid enough case to proceed with prosecution. I’m not going to fall on my sword for a bunch of people too stupid to value their freedom. So I’ve invented an excuse that wouldn’t stand up in a first year law classroom.
If a majority of the American people are so stupid as to elect this piece of traitorous excrement, they deserve what they’ll get.’
The announcement was surprising. To so nakedly display that Equalitly Under the Law is dead to this administration is troubling. I can only hope that their arrogance comes back to bite them. But my intuition tells me that it won’t.
Reps. Ryan and Chaffetz have announced that the latter will be calling Comey in to testify to Congress about how he came to the decision to not prosecute Hillary. I’m hoping that something useful will come of that. But stonewalling seems to have become an art form in Washington these days. So it’s anyone’s guess whether we’ll actually learn anything.
Of course, as naked and blatant as this is, too may progs have convinced themselves that Dubya was doing the same thing back when he was in office. So for them, the reaction is along the lines of, “Yeah, it’s bad, but the other side was doing it first!”
I just read Comey’s full statement again, and this time this short paragraph jumped out:
I can’t see that as anything other than Comey trying to provide a bit of exoneration for Hillary’s behavior, since the State Dept. has such a lousy “security culture” anyway.
You know it’s bad when even MSNBC is embarrassed: https://youtu.be/9QpfrZyQzzg
For people who don’t know, Frank Quattrone was one of the top, top investment bankers to Silicon Valley before 2001. I imagine his business was really hurt by that prosecution.
Comey knew, as did we all, that there was no way the DOJ would agree to indict Hillary, even if the FBI recommended that. Therefore, what would be the point? The only thing an FBI recommendation to indict would accomplish would be to cause Comey to lose his job. Therefore, no recommendation.
In Tom Clancy novels FBI men may be paragons of courage, virtue, and patriotism but that’s not real life. In real life, the FBI is composed of regular people, with families and mortgages, no better or worse than most of the rest of us. There was no reason to expect Comey to be exceptionally courageous or admirable just because he is head of the FBI.
Comey says he will appear before a House committee. He will be under oath. This committee better not screw this up.
David Swadel
All of the deleted “personal” emails that were deleted and then completely destroyed relate to he bribery scheme the Clintons ran through the Foundation. That’s WHY the server was setup in the first place.
The most damning part of Comey’s original statement came near the end.
Hillary Clinton was spared because she was Hillary Clinton.
KRB
junior:
“Of course, as naked and blatant as this is, too may progs have convinced themselves that Dubya was doing the same thing back when he was in office.”
Their standard rhetorical and, as you point out, rationalizing tack is to deploy the prevailing yet false narrative of President Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom, which usually works to reduce Republicans to a defensive posture.
The effective, table-flipping counter-move versus the Democrat-front Left’s go-to rhetorical tack is to set the record straight that President Bush’s decision for OIF was correct on the law and facts.
One reason why it was so shocking: the timing of the following sequence of events.
–Bill Clinton (supposedly) barges into AG Lorretta Lynch’s plane and has a private 30 min discussion
–Two days later, Lynch claims she will accept the recommendations of the FBI (weasel words, or possibly passing the hot potato to Comey?)
–Two days later Hillary finally deigns to meet with the FBI (on a holiday weekend) after delaying this for months, meanwhile, some Hillary insider whispers that she wants AG Lynch to stay on in her administration (talk about making sure Lynch appears bought!)
–Two days later Comey (not Lynch) publicly announces no indictment while at the same time Obama is giving Hillary a ride on Air Force One to a rally in which he strongly endorsed her for president
This investigation went on for months, and then it is resolved with lightening speed once Bill Clinton (likely) intervened.
I suppose I didn’t expect them to make it so obvious to us that the whole thing was rigged. That the Clintons were so brazen about it is particularly unsettling, and a bad sign of what we could expect from a Hillary presidency.
There was a ton of speculation at the time that when Roberts ignored the clear language of the statute to come up with the tortured tax-law Obamacare ruling, that someone had something “on him”.
It seems even more obvious this time, with Comey essentially laying out the entire reason for her guilt, that there’d be even more speculation about what the “they” have on him.
Comey’s statement was far more tortured then the Robert’s decision.
As for the reason not to recommend prosecution because there was “no intent”, how can there be so many obvious lies with no intent?
…not that intent matters a whit in this case, as Andy McCarthy laid out so forcefully yesterday at NR. The statute is what it is, and the FBI has no standing to rewrite law.
Alas, poor America. I knew her Horatio …etc.
please let us poor peons know what you’re talking about
His unwillingness to do this is especially galling since he made a big point in his statement about “transparency”:
Not just transparency, but unusual transparency. As I said, galling.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
“The subtext of Comey’s speech…”
That was essentially the point I was going to make. Great minds and all that crap.
If you’re going to be forced to fall on your sword, strap the perp to your back first.
“It seems even more obvious this time, with Comey essentially laying out the entire reason for her guilt, that there’d be even more speculation about what the ‘they’ have on him.”
Not just Comey, on Obama.
Obama could have kept his distance, maybe put out a simple statement in support of the FBI and DoJ performing a thorough investigation blah blah blah and then waited a few days for the MSM storm to settle before getting involved in Hillary’s campaign. That’s Obama’s MO – no one is more surprised than he is when news about his own administration’s incompetents comes out, just heard about it on the news and all that.
Instead, Obama was with Hillary, actively endorsing her to a huge crowd, at the same time Comey was making his statement. Surely he wouldn’t have risked doing that if he didn’t already know the outcome. I just figure that Obama’s overwhelming show of support was a condition of the resolution Bill and Hill demanded when Bill met with Lynch.
A dog is honest, neo
Lizzy Says:
July 6th, 2016 at 7:17 pm
One reason why it was so shocking: the timing of the following sequence of events….
This investigation went on for months, and then it is resolved with lightening speed once Bill Clinton (likely) intervened.
I suppose I didn’t expect them to make it so obvious to us that the whole thing was rigged. That the Clintons were so brazen about it is particularly unsettling, and a bad sign of what we could expect from a Hillary presidency.
* * *
The Clintons have been thumbing their noses at the public for decades. Events in the last 8 years have demonstrated that the media will always cover for any Democrat / Leftist cause, not just the Royals, and that no one is ever prosecuted for anything that advances the Left’s agenda (or doesn’t negatively impact it; hard to see any ideological agenda in the VA killing vets and getting rewarded for it, but there is no percentage for the Dems in stopping it). Therefore, why should they care a whit about the optics anymore?
…forget it, neo. It’s all Chinatown, now.
My usual bizzare take is that had Comey indicted HRC the Democrats would have been forced to nominate Bernie Sanders. All the speculation about Biden or Kerry as a replacement was nonsense since to do otherwise would have caused a massive revolt within the party and spelled certain defeat. Anyone but Sanders would have absolutely no legitamcy at this point.
What Comey could, and I think should, have done is recommend indictment of a number of Hillary’s aides including Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Sidney Blumenthal, and all the IT people. In the popular phrasing, the optics would be terrible for HRC even though she’s off the hook.
brdavis9 is on to something.
However, its the second Roberts Obamacare decision that illustrates what is going on here.
In King v. Burwell, we were faced with the Administration’s rewriting the law that said that subsidies could only go to exhanges “established by the State” to read to exchanges “established by the State or the federal government.” Roberts and the 4 always-libs on SCOTUS went along.
Now we have Comey rewriting 18 USC 793(f) so that instead of “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” now effectively reads “intentionally for the purpose of harming the USA 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.”
Stated another way, Congress might enact first drafts of a law, the Administration rewrites the law as it sees fit.
None of what I just wrote takes away from brdavis9’s point that Obama or the Clintons have something on Comey. Or, of course, as Cornhead has pointed out in another thread on this website, perhaps a really nice job now awaits Comey at the firm of Clinton’s lawyer David Kendall.
matthew49 probably has it about right, but I wouldn’t say the DOJ never would.
The Clintons and the Obama Admin played the game well and have won. Obfuscate, sand bag, misdirection, etc., etc.. and ran the clock out.
Had that all not happened (i.e. had it been rather quick with getting to the facts of the matter), had HRC not been such a strong candidate relative to any Dem challenger, and had Obama not been so tied to HRC for his future, … IOW had it been someone else on Obama’s cabinet … we might have seen a different outcome. I’d also throw in Trump (or fear/concern of him) is likely a factor too.
But, ultimately, at this point, with the election so close, the bar is automatically much higher, as the consequences are much higher.
Is there a really a “smoking gun” to be had that makes it a clear black and white decision? If the FBI doesn’t have it, but only has circumstantial evidence (even a pile of it) of possible wrongdoing (even negligence), then wouldn’t it just be a big setup for another OJ trial?
Remember the outcry we all had at Candy Crowley’s declaration that Romney was wrong on Benghazi during a debate in 2012? Imagine the outpouring from all those on the left if this were to go to trial? It would make our reaction to the Crowley “interference” seem like a minor whine in comparison.
If OJ can get away with murder, imagine someone with the political clout and resources of the Clintons. “Reasonable Doubt” may not be such a high bar to achieve absent a clear “smoking gun”. The Clintons have had plenty of time to master the art of plausible deniability.
If she was found “not guilty” then what?
Consider this… Remember the outcry mentioned above? We will then have effectively inoculated HRC (and possibly any future presidential candidate) from most any future prosecution.
Comey has probably carefully considered whether it was worth that kind of gamble.
matthew49 is right, our expectations, if we thought there might have been an indictment, were probably way too high, and it is fanciful thinking that were we in his shoes we’d each come to a different conclusion and be anxious to bear the full weight as the fulcrum on this.
Not saying this is all morally correct by my books, btw, lest any dear readers confuse explanation with advocacy.
However, it did exceed my expectations in one way…
Comey may not feel he had enough to meet a high bar, but he did lay out more than enough to refute many of Clinton’s claims. There was not much to be gained by him for doing so, in the way he did.
mezzrow,
Its far more corrupt and dangerous than Chinatown, its all Chicago on the Potomac now.
Big Maq –
My understanding is that the fact that the server existed *at all* is enough to convict Hillary of even the most basic of the charges involved.
Everything else would just be gravy.
And with apologies to the ’60s anti-war protestors…
“Hey, hey, Hill-ah-ray!
How many laws did you break today?”
(yes, the pronunciation’s a bit weird; but the alliteration doesn’t work otherwise)
Here is a story about the character, integrity and honor of one James Comey prior to his appointment as FBI Director. It’s about 4 Muslims caught in Michigan not long after 9/11 with plans for major attacks in the US. They were found guilty at trial.
The straight shooting Comey, then John Ashcroft’s top deputy, led a team to get their convictions overturned and set them free. Comey then had the prosecutor and FBI lead investigator indicted and prosecuted. Both were found not guilty by a federal jury.
Perhaps it’s time to question McCarthy’s judgment in picking his friends.
James Comey Freed These Islamic Terrorists, Got Them Citizenship, Prosecuted Feds Who Pursued Them
Listening to Comey, I’m reminded of a prisoner of war signalling with his hands that he’s being coerced to say what he is saying. His conclusion utterly flies against his presentation.
Comey would not lose his current job if he recommended indictment. In 2001 the appointment of the FBI director was charged to a fixed 10 year term. The POTUS and the AG can not fire Comey. As Cornhead has suggested, Comey is thinking about salary and other income sources after he serves his term or resigns early. He traded any sense of integrity for a future fist full of bonuses and perhaps stock options. Not what I would call a real straight shooter.
“So it would be extremely helpful to know what cases the FBI has prosecuted involving “mishandling or removal of classified information” under this same statute? Names? Fact situations?””
Bryan Nishimura.
geokstr:
Be careful who you link to; make sure you check it out, unless the site is very trustworthy. That site is often quite problematic (see this, for example).
Here’s a bona fide article about the case (see also this).
Steve57:
Yes, I know that one.
The point is that Comey should have mentioned the cases he was relying on. He didn’t mention one.
Even the great Instapundit can be wrong:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0416/reynolds041116.php3
Hillary acolytes can’t seem to grasp that Beltway-insider status doesn’t exempt from prosecution
By Glenn Reynolds
Published April 11, 2016
* *
Looks like it does now.
A “reasonable prosecutor” decides that Hillary should have been indicted.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-makes-the-fbis-least-wanted-list-1467760857
“The FBI director said the investigation of Mrs. Clinton was a case for “unusual transparency,” and the transparency in Tuesday’s exercise was certainly unusual. Mr. Comey’s disclosure of his recommendation outside the context of any discussion with Justice Department lawyers was anomalous. What is supposed to happen in a matter like this is, as the director mentioned, a “prosecutive” decision–i.e., a decision made by prosecutors. It is not an investigative decision. Investigators are supposed principally to gather facts.
Mr. Comey didn’t explain why, with evidence clearly fulfilling the requirements of the two statutes involved, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case–except for the director’s inaccurate assertion that it had never been done before.
And finally, although there was transparency about process, there was no discussion of underlying facts, only conclusions. It may be that some day there will be the usual transparency: disclosure of facts. That day was not Tuesday, and it is little wonder that many in and out of government were left both puzzled and dismayed.”
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York (1988-2006).
We need a break from the bad news.
http://time.com/2957348/fireworks-drone/
Admittedly not under the statute I would hang Hillory for. But I’ll take what I can get.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18.htm
Hillary.
This close to the conventions, it was obvious the FBI wouldn’t touch Hillary. If they had any intention of actually indicting Hillary, they would’ve done it months ago. Add to that the announcement that Lynch would remain AG under a Hillary presidency and, come on, you had to know the fix was in.
Steve57:
Hillory, pillory.
“He didn’t mention one.”
Neoneocon,
Of course he did not mention one. That would disrupt his narrative of guilty but not guilty due to ‘intent’. Welcome to the rule of Henry VIII.
Irene,
In Chicago on the Potomac the fix is sop. Now, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear it is out in the open, far beyond ‘transparency’. Hrc or djt, same coin, flip it and the result is the same…. the Republic is on life support.
Per Comey’s assertions, it appears HRC committed perjury during her testimony before the congressional committee on Benghazi; besides misleading the American people for the past two years.
Per Comey’s assertions, it appears HRC committed perjury during her testimony before the congressional committee on Benghazi.
This is the way I see it: Comey dealt Trump four aces. Yes the system is rigged. No the elites are not accountable. The political culture is corrupt through and through. And this is, above all others, Madame Hillary.
How should Trump play it?
“I’ll prosecute her.”
He should be saying that 50 times a day. Till November.
Julian T,
With all do respect, djt, on the day Comey anointed hrc, the donald tweeted Saddam Hussein was at the vanguard in the war on islamic terrorists. Dream on. The donald is capable of turning 4 aces into a fold.
parker:
Trump’s playing 4-dimensional poker 🙂 .
The WSJ’s Holman Jenkins continues to speculate that Trump may not have that many chips on the table and isn’t likely to throw a lot more of his good money after bad if his odds don’t improve asap. How serious is he?
“My understanding is that the fact that the server existed *at all* is enough to convict Hillary of even the most basic of the charges involved.” – junior
A few things:
1) As I understand it, that was a policy violation.
2a) Also as I understand it (looking forward to Neo’s “legal brief” to bring more clarity here), there are a couple of legal avenues to pursue – even though this may be a policy issue, are there laws for which this clearly shows there is intent to violate? Or, is this big enough to make the case for negligence? In both cases, is it really open and shut, or is there significant “grey area”?
2b) Some might argue otherwise, but Hillary Clinton “lying” about it all in public (Comey provided sufficient info to help us understand this is the case) is not prosecutable, AFAIK – if she did while under sworn oath before agents of the court or LE, then yes it would be. I don’t know enough to say this did or did not happen, and have to trust Comey.
3) This all is made even more messy by the poor practices or poor oversight of (maybe?) good practice policy at State (past precedent, and present), and, by extension, the WH – where, surely, several had to be aware that the incoming and return addresses were not government issued. And, the buck stops where? No doubt, not at HRC’s desk.
4) There might be “sufficient evidence” for you or I to face some consequence (legal or otherwise), but we are not running for president, nor do we have the resources or clout. Even if DOJ were highly motivated (they are not), they’d face a formidable legal team.
I am sure there are lawyers who can talk all around this and find some basis for a “definitive” opinion on this or that charge, but ask them about the probability of getting a conviction, as that really is what it comes down to.
It is not the legal aspect / decision that is bothersome… It is the depressing result of a government too large that even basic accountability is no longer asked for, let alone enforceable for cases like these. Nobody bothered to ask the right questions back in 2008, so we get this.
It is what p*sses us all off. Yet, to “fix” it all, our (former) party is pushing for one of the other heads of the hydra as their savior from all the rest of that beast.
Agh @#%@#, if that is where we think the answer lies, we may keep wishing for it, but it is not going to happen, so forget about HRC ever being held accountable for anything she’s done to date.
Hope to G0d that the GOP find a way to get someone else to replace Trump at the convention, as too many seem stuck on binary choices.
“The donald is capable of turning 4 aces into a fold.” – parker
Play DJT in a game of tic tac toe – he lost!
/jk
This FBI announcement was a ball sitting on a “T” for him (everyone knew it was coming) – he barely even connected with it. Should have been a home run for him.
Neo and Big Maq,
Trump is not only a buffoon, he is a trojan horse. He increasingly appears to be the Clinton’s spoiler. That was my initial take, one which I backed away from, and now have returned to embrace. The donald seeks to hype his brand name, for the duped who swallowed his propaganda. The presidency was never his goal. Its one of those NYC values scams.
Idiots, yes idiots and crossover dems gave him his primary victories. Those who insist that my refusal to vote for djt is a vote for hrc, well, they are complicent in our current dire straits. FYATHYRINO. (IIf you experience difficulties in unraveling the acronym you are far dumber than I gave you credit for.)
Maybe Comey was brainwashed? http://www.realtruenews.org/single-post/2016/07/06/Director-Comey-Justice-Roberts-BRAINWASHED
Parker:
Any day now I expect djt to midnight tweet
“Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into.”
I have not had the chance to read the responses, but what i CAN say is that its clear to me that comey was ordered to do something comey didnt want to do, and since the order wasnt detailed, he was able to lay it on the table and let the cards land in his bosses lap, not his.
Comey: We should indict
Lynch: If you indict him i will make your life a living hell forever…
Comey: ok boss..
Comey thinking: “she didnt tell me HOW to proceed”
so he lays out the case as he has it
and he then says we wont go after her
now its lynch and such on the defensive
and if she says anyting, he says “i did what you told me to do”…
when telling subordinates to do things that are wrong, and they have to comply, you better also tell them HOW you want it done, as that gives great leeway..
note that according to law, if your boss asks you to do something illegal, you HAVE to do it, failure to do so is acceptable grounds for being fired without unemployment benefits.
i found that out the hard way from a district attorney who apologized for how that works…
junior Says: The announcement was surprising. To so nakedly display that Equalitly Under the Law is dead to this administration is troubling.
I’m sorry, but that bit of jurisprudence went out the window with feminisms changes to laws from the reasonable person standard to what we have now (call it the unreasonable woman standard), and affirmative action, and so on.
in fact, the key feminist point on this one that made the changes is the new equality law they are seeking for wages (so the state then dictates salaries)… and their open statements decades ago that in order to have equal outcomes one must apply the law unequally
U.N. Report: Women May Need ‘Different Treatment’ to Achieve Economic Equality
http://time.com/3837530/un-report-women-may-need-different-treatment-to-achieve-economic-equality/
“We must go beyond creating equal opportunities to ensure equal outcomes,” the report says. “‘Different treatment’ may be required to achieve real equality in practice.” This report, called Progress of the World’s Women 2015—2016, is one of the first major international reports to acknowledge that legal equality for women does not translate into actual equality, and that governments must make substantial social-policy changes that enable the redistribution of domestic duties in order for women to play a truly equal role in society.
in fact, if you look up equal outcome most of the arguments and such are feminist…
but thats just how you get it in place, like how they did for civil forfeiture
you may think no one follows them much, but the politicos and such follow them A LOT
These philosophies have links with different types of cultures and societies. For example Marxism and Communism is heavily linked to Equal Economic Outcome for the Collective. Whereas a Capitalist state concentrates on Equal Economic Opportunities for the Individual. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and there are a range of ways each could be achieved in practise.
[edited for length by n-n]
When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you – you know your nation is doomed… Ayn Rand
note that i said this was the outcome 10 years ago on this blog… and i was told i was negative… but if you dont prevent such things, then knowing they will come is not negative, its being truthful…
just look how we would rather have establishment corrupticrats and communists rather than capitalists and freedom lovers… to the point we assume establishment types of lesser totalitarian urges to be the same as freedom lovers.
And the Pajama boys, and the Twitter Girls,
Or psychotic Queen, as the case may be.
18 US code 2071 (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. H
another example of that change i mentioned:
In an effort to maintain the new status quo of cutting standards everywhere in the name of equality and “progress”, the Marine Corps announced major changes over the Fourth of July holiday weekend regarding how much it will allow service members to weigh, and the biggest shift comes for women: going forward “larger” ladies will be allowed to defend the country while also standards used within the physical fitness test will also be relaxed.
In a document released by USMC Fitness division, the new height and weight standard took effect on July 1, 2016 and is relaxing regulations to increase the pool of potential parties. Think of it as a covenant lite loan in a way… only “heavy.” Why would the US do this? One could be excused for understandably saying that the US is becoming more progressive and is accommodating those who have the heart to serve but not necessary the physical capability.
“takes and carries away any record” – art
“willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same” – art
.
Not sure if you posted this to say that Clinton is guilty of such breaking such laws.
But, there is a heckuva lotta wiggle room in those words from a legalistic standpoint.
.
If it is accepted practice, as it seems to have been (and with some limited precedence in the past), to let the SecState operate for four years with her own server – is that a “take”?
If it wasn’t accepted practice, where is the documentation that says anyone with higher authority had problems with it?
When it was operationally in use in conducting government business, is it considered “concealment”?
What is the line between “doing a poor job” of sorting 10s of 1000s of emails between government business vs personal and “removal, or concealment”?
.
Oh, but it is Clinton’s intent on hiding information!? Since we cannot read her mind, where’s the smoking gun document(s) that shows us her thoughts on what she is doing and why?
And, the DOJ? Would they put their best and brightest on this, or just their “jayvee team” to prosecute, if it came to that.
.
Not saying there isn’t a case to be had, but that it is far from a likely “convictable” one – a wish disguised as an assumption many seem to harbor.
Another assumption/wish is the idea that a trial would necessarily stop her candidacy. Not if most of the Dem machine can turn this into a political move to “interfere” with the elections.
As mentioned above, strategically, what happens if Clinton is NOT found guilty, and then becomes president? Can we live with those consequences?
It is a steaming mess and the alternative (in a binary blinkered world) is not only a losing proposition, but one who is just as comfortable playing the same games (and proudly being more obvious about it).
George Will and Bill Kristol still want her to be President.
Tell me again what the intellectual basis of Conservatism is supposed to be.
Tuvea:
What an absurd statement.
First of all, I’ve never thought of George Will as a conservative. A Republican, yes; a conservative, no. I’m not being cute here; I really have never thought of him as conservative at all. Nor have I followed him all that much, because I’ve never been attracted to his columns or his thinking.
However, of course he doesn’t want Hillary to be president. He doesn’t like Trump and that’s it. Same with Kristol, who is somewhat more of a conservative and who dislikes Trump intensely and wants someone to replace him in the GOP and beat Hillary.
You can disagree with both. You can say that if they don’t vote for Trump they facilitate Hillary’s win. But that is not even remotely the same as wanting her to win. I’m very tired of hearing and seeing false statements like that, which seem common among the most rabid of Trump supporters.
It is very possible to not want Hillary to win and not want Trump to win. They are the two worst candidates we’ve seen in my lifetime, by a longshot.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/the-pressing-need-for-mens-rea-reform
An interesting discussion of the different standards of “mens rea” (“guilty mind”) which speaks to one of the challenge in prosecuting Clinton.
Big Maq:
I just skimmed that article, and from my perusal of it I don’t see that it has anything to do with Clinton.
The entire thrust of the article is about criminal laws applied to regular folk who are prosecuted for crimes they didn’t know were crimes. For example, see this: “people who engaged in conduct without any knowledge of or intent to violate the law and that they could not reasonably have anticipated would violate a criminal law.”
The law under which Clinton should have been prosecuted had no mens rea but it had “gross negligence” as a standard, a standard Hillary Clinton met. There was a reason that intent was purposely not made part of the law, and that was because of the reason Trey Gowdy articulated today (the video is in this post)—public officials do not announce intent when they are going to subvert the law and hide things in this way. Intent can only be inferred, and it is very hard to prove, so gross negligence is considered evidence of intent.
In other words, there is no way that Clinton didn’t know she was violating a law. There is no reason she set up the email system that way except in order to evade the law. This can easily be inferred, and a law requiring intent is neither necessary nor in the public interest when we’re talking about abuse by public servants full of power, as well as knowledge of the law.
Someone in high office is entrusted with confidential information and it is a sacred trust. If they abuse that trust, they should be prosecuted if they have shown gross negligence in handling that information. Clinton showed that, and more (including intent). If intent were an outright requirement for prosecution, it would pave the way for more abuses by public servants in power.
Big Maq — As has been made clear on this blog many times, intent is not required for the application of 18 US 7939f). As to (d) and (e), it is the willful communication of information relating to the national defense by a person who has reason to believe could be used to the detriment of the US or to the advantage of a foreign nation which constitutes the offense.
Are you saying Hillary didn’t willfully set up he private, unsecured server? That she didn’t willfully send and receive e-mails on it? Are you saying she didn’t have reason to know the information could be used to the detriment of the US or advantage of a foreign nation?
If mens rea is limited only to intent to harm the US, then neither the Rosenbergs or Jonathan Pollard could be prosecuted — they didn’t INTEND to harm the US, they only intended to help another nation.
Same with 18 USC 2071 — do you think “Yes, I willfully destroyed that information, but it was for my personal benefit, not to harm the US” is a defense?
Richard Saunders:
I hope you saw the Trey Gowdy clip from today’s hearing. I’ll include it here, too, in case anyone missed it in today’s post:
There’s a Hebrew expression – “Gam zulu tov.”
“Maybe this is for the best.” (Idiomatic translation.)
As I’ve said before, Joe Biden would be much tougher to beat. Anybody with half a brain should be able to beat Hillary now, she’s such a target-rich environment. (Oops! Did I just say that?)
I suspect Tuvea was one of the Democrat voters who got us in this mess, now he thinks he has jumped ship.
I suppose I didn’t expect them to make it so obvious to us that the whole thing was rigged. That the Clintons were so brazen about it is particularly unsettling, and a bad sign of what we could expect from a Hillary presidency.
The Leftist alliance used to hide in the shadows, using their power of evil and influence to buy wealth and political power. Now a days, they are going for the throat, as they have already deployed substantial percentages of their strategic reserve. They can’t go back into hiding after deploying and using that much power.
Power, which I remind people, the Leftist alliance, not merely the Clintons, have stockpiled for decades if not a century plus.