Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Comey announcement 11:00 EST

  • SHE DID SEND AND RECEIVE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION (some marked as such)
  • Extremely Careless - known or should have known they were classified
  • No business sending over unauthorized server
  • "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" 

But.....  NO RECOMMENDATION OF CHARGES!

To be honest, up until he made the statement in question...  based on what they found, I thought he was going to recommend charges. In fact, I am sure most people listening felt it was going in that direction. He clearly made a case for negligent handling of classified materials, which applies to at least two statutes.

So to be clear. Comey stated that she both sent and received top secret classified information, that she knew was classified (at the time it was sent and received) over an unauthorized server, that "she has no business" using to send, receive, or house classified information.

By definition, doing so is a crime  But she never "intended" to do so, so it's not a crime?

I think James Covey's days as FBI Director will be coming to a close.



So far, no buzz from anyone what "specifically" he will have to say. I would have thought by now, there would have been plenty of "leaks" or at least speculative "leaks". Since the last witness was interviewed over the weeked, technically, there would be almost no time to have worked out anything with the DOJ in terms of those "career prosecutors and attorneys" who are supposedly going to be involved in all of this.

Note: Reliable source says Comey informed AG Lynch only this am about his press conference this morning without any hint of what he will say

The most interesting theory is that he is announcing his resignation? Now, wouldn't that be interesting.

Given his boss was just meeting with the Husband of the person he is investigating... as well as the fact that his boss's boss will be actually with that person as he makes his speech...

It's pretty damned clear what the announcement will "not" be...

102 comments:

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

NO PROSECUTION RECOMMENDED.

opie' said...

Just as I predicted, not intent, no indictment!!!! Sorry CH, I called it exactly in spite of your reading of the law and logic. Classification and handling is based on each persons integrity. Yes, He called her stupid, but that is not a crime!!!! ,BWAAAAAA! Thanx, I'm sure I will remind you of my superior predictive powers in the future. So much for your prayers.

opie' said...

I love the should have known crap. I've been yelled and ranted at by high level govmt auditors that I should have known what to give them rather than what they asked for. Yep, you need to be extra special and be a mind reader when dealing with our friends in the system. Oh, well, CH. Here come the rants she should be in jail and because being stupid should go away. This will be fun. LOL

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

CH said:
To be honest, up until he made the statement in question... based on what they found, I thought he was going to recommend charges.
______________

There were moments in his statement when I too, to be honest, was thinking, this is not looking good for Clinton. Then toward the end it started becoming clearer that there seemed not real basis for a recommendation for prosecution.

wphamilton said...

No recommendation of charges, not "no indictment". Certainly not "cleared". Let's not get carried away just yet.

On the up-side, now about 40% of the country will be convinced of a whitewash.

opie' said...


No recommendation of charges, not "no indictment".

Didn't the AG say she would follow the recommendations of the FBI? My guess there will be no charges filled, but she certainly open for a lot of criticism for being stupid. The voters will hear no indictment and will tire very quickly of listening to the BS rhetoric that will spew on twitter. The 40% already had her guilty as charged, so no surprise there. LOL

Myballs said...

So Bill needs with the AG, a few days later, Hillary, after months of delays, meets with FBI, and a few days after that, no charges to be recommended, all over a holiday weekend when she is on Airforce One with Obama.

Gee, why would anyone think this is all rigged for Hillary to be the next President?

wphamilton said...

No, the AG did not say that. She said recommendation and career prosecutors.

Don't kid yourself - this turns away far more than just the anti-Hillary people originally. It has now become a political no-win situation for this Administration, and to an extent for Clinton. If Trump had little chance before, he has a good chance now.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

What a nice background for Clinton and Obama, who as we speak are flying on Air Force One to North Carolina where there is going to be a real renewed camampaign kick off BLOWOUT.

And thanks, Ch, for the photo of them at the top of this thread.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

11:03 Have you become cracked about the head? Had any serious falls lately? Your political acumen is less than stellar.

Myballs said...

The Bernies won't be too happy either.

It plays into what he's been saying for months.

The system is rigged for Hillary and their seems to be little anyone can do about it.

So much for democracy.

opie' said...

career prosecutors.

Didn't Comey spend a lot of time talking about how prosecutors would not take the case??????

opie' said...

If Trump had little chance before, he has a good chance now.


I sincerely doubt that given his latest idiocy du jour with the star of david tweet. He has plenty of time to embarrass both himself and the country many times. LOL

wphamilton said...

No, Comey did not spend a lot of time on that. He did say 5 or 6 words, after prefacing it with the clarification that it's up to the Justice Department.

It is unlikely that the Justice Department will seek charges. Do you really think that having half the country convinced - not maybe, not something smells, but absolutely convinced - of a whitewash, that it will have no general election impact?

Politically tone-deaf by whoever (if anyone) has been guiding this sequence of events.

Myballs said...

What idiocy? Another dem dog whistle. Trump's own daughter is Jewish.

wphamilton said...

The only people who think this FBI result will help Clinton are people like you, who were going to vote for her regardless.

Everyone else, and I mean everyone, is going to be at least disturbed about a potential President who is "extremely careless" with national security, and against whom there is substantial "evidence of potential crimes" that might, as Comey said, be prosecuted for other individuals in other circumstances. And that's for people who AREN'T convinced of a whitewash.

Mark these words and remember who wrote them.

Do you really think that ends it for Clinton? What's the over/under for Republican consensus demand for a Special Prosecutor to evaluate the FBI evidence?

opie' said...

Blogger C.H. Truth said...
"For the simple minded... I hate to point this out,"

That you were wrong, CH. Appreciate that I could C&P your own words against you.

opie' said...

who think this FBI result will help Clinton are people like you

I don't think that at all. Being called stupid on the record is not going to help at all. Donald will have a field day with this for about a week, than the short memories of most voters will kick in since there is no charges. JMHO I guess the donald failing the likeablity war with so many groups is his achilles heel. As to over under, ain't going to happen. In industry, she would have been fired without prejudice and able to hold a job by whomever would hire her,


No, Comey did not spend a lot of time on that. He did say 5 or 6 words,

I think not, I'll wait for the transcripts to say for sure. IOW's why would he even mention it, for fun?????

Commonsense said...

He basicly said a crime was committed but he was not going the recommend charges.

So we have one set of rules for the privilege and a set of rules for the rest of us.

KD, Hillary and OJ, two pea's said...

It is up to me to point out to the leftist, they are happy that She was not Indicted or charged, really, that is the new lowest of standards?

I mean really, that is your standards for conduct for Obama, Hillary , I am so happy that you all feel she is the best, wait, the very , very best you have to reflect your personal beliefs.


wphamilton said...

Anonymous opie' said...
I don't think that at all.

To be fair, that was responding to James with his little over-the-top assessment of others' political acumen.

There will be no chance that it will be allowed to fade in short memories. Remember, that's what some people thought a year ago.

Transcripts are already available, that's the basis I was responding from.

KD, Bernie not at all happy said...

Bernie Voters, more likely then before to stay home or vote Trump.

The Brexit vote was over this very kind of raw open political corruption.


Obama/Hillary/Lynch what a team.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

No charges, but there is some in the statement that the Republicans will attempt to use against her. Was she careless? Was she irresponsible?

We shall see.

Paul Ryan is calling the director a political tool.

This is going to hurt Republicans, the FBI is not political. He says they were. He's full of it.

KD, Crooked Hillary Wins said...

I job to NOTE


It was not ONE server that the FBI Director spoke of but more then one.

Hillary said of her deleted emails that she personally delete after her close review, NONE contained classified information.

VS

FBI Director statement that said they did.


Will Republicans take to the streets vandalize, loot and burglarize over this injustice?

You know like the Liberals do?

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

11:23 Wp says, Do you really think this ends it for Clinton?
_______________
Yes, Wp, I think this largely ends it for Clinton. We will see. And then you and I can measure my political acumen against yours.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger...

After the Director of FBI laid out the facts, showing that she knowingly sent top secret classified materials over an unauthorized server that they believe was hacked by foreign agents...

and then said there was "no intent" to do so...

It's not his position that is in question. It's the conclusion that doesn't follow the argument he made on fact. That's going to be pretty simple for most people to conclude.

wphamilton said...

Anonymous KD, Hillary and OJ, two pea's said...
It is up to me to point out to the leftist, they are happy that She was not Indicted or charged, really, that is the new lowest of standards?


Precisely. And after the initial celebration, that low standard won't be enough. At best one could rationalize not voting for Trump on this basis ... but just as easily rationalize a vote for Trump on this whole sordid ordeal.

opie' said...

Seems to be a few more than 5 or 6 words.....


No, Comey did not spend a lot of time on that. He did say 5 or 6 words,


In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Seems to me it is a few more than 5 0r 6 words.

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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases 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.

opie' said...


"and then said there was "no intent" to do so..." to disclose to another party. Just as I told you before.

opie' said...

That's going to be pretty simple for most people to conclude."

Like you concluding the FBI was wrong and they should indict her. Oh well, keep digging CH.

KD said...

Although there is evidence"

Yep, we see that Opium, but thanks for pointing it out again.

Hillary vs FBI Directors findings.


Here is how the Trump ads look, a statement from Hillary in her own words with video,,,,,,, then, a statement from the FBI Director,,,,,, then back to Hillary , and back to the FBI Director, point by point you let the FBI Director defeat the statements of Hillary.


Enjoy your win today Liberals.

wphamilton said...

... the prosecutors make the decisions we don’t normally make public our recommendations ... we engage in productive conversations ... I think unusual transparency is in order
Seems to me it is a few more than 5 0r 6 words.

Words primarily disclaiming the recommendation, saying it was up to the Justice Department. As I said, 5 or 6 words about recommending no charges, a lot of time prefacing it with disclaimers.

Commonsense said...

On Twitter, there’s been a lot of “the FBI didn’t find a malicious intent” pushback against criticism, but that statute expressly doesn’t require malicious intent for prosecution. It expressly states that “gross negligence” meets the standard for criminal prosecution, and Comey spent most of the presser making the case for gross negligence.

And once again, if Comey thinks that this multiple-server e-mail scheme doesn’t rise to the level of prosecution, why is the DoJ prosecuting Kristian Saucier, a sailor who took a few cell-phone photos of his submarine for his own personal mementoes?


One set of rules for the privilege; another set for the rest of us. Most corrupt administration evah.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Ch, if you can allow Commensa to "spam" why cannot I point that if anyone wants an in depth analysis of why Clinton will not be prosecuted, it can be found at ThinkProgress.

Under
"Hillary Clinton Isn’t Getting Indicted. Here’s Why."

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

12:19
I'd love to see an in depth answer as to why their reasons are wrong.

KD, Huffington post/think progressive have a big "O" said...

Commonsense said...


He basicly said a crime was committed but he was not going the recommend charges.

So we have one set of rules for the privilege and a set of rules for the rest of us."

The Bernie Sanders Camp was far more right about this then I first believed, he pointed out that Hillary/Obimbo had rigged the Socialist Democrat nomination system and now we see the raw corruption of the US Legal System, why.


To Protect and Defend = Hillary



Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

I'd love to see an in depth answer to why their reasons are wrong.

KD said...

Commonsense said...


He basicly said a crime was committed but he was not going the recommend charges.

So we have one set of rules for the privilege and a set of rules for the rest of us."

The Bernie Sanders Camp was far more right about this then I first believed, he pointed out that Hillary/Obimbo had rigged the Socialist Democrat nomination system and now we see the raw corruption of the US Legal System, why.


To Protect and Defend = Hillary

wphamilton said...

" looking back at our investigations ... All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;"

Since the FBI clearly found that mishandling did happen, that the "clearly intentional and willful" determination fails can have no other interpretation than: Clinton, as Secretary of State, was too stupid to realize that she was mishandling classified information. Or else, to rise to "intentional" the FBI needed evidence of active misappropriation of the information, which they failed to find.

Is there any other possibility? Anyone?

The latter would require that the Secretary of State to have committed possibly treasonous acts, willfully making classified information available, it order to charge her with a misdemeanor. That reasoning is clearly wrong, if for no other reason than the Legislatures could not have defined a misdemeanor infraction by treasonous acts.

Laying out the case but declining to recommend charges, stating in several ways that it's up to the Justice Department now, looks more like a punt than anything else.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

It looks like Comey was forced to go out and say what Loretta Lynch could no longer say without it looking like the fix was in.

There was evidence of a crime, but we are not going to charge her.

Commonsense said...

Ch, if you can allow Commensa to "spam"

Well James I posted a link of two short paragraphs along will my own opinion.

That doesn't qualify as "spam" by any sense of the word.

You on the other hand violate the fair use clause quite regularly and fail to properly link those comments back to the source.

Your's is nothing but spam and is recognized as such by everybody on this board. Even your so-called friends.

KD said...

Jane, you are the queen of a very simple double standard.

You ask questions and for the most part we answer them for you, you however do not do the same when asked questions.

I know why.

Commonsense said...

It looks like Comey was forced to go out and say what Loretta Lynch could no longer say without it looking like the fix was in.

Given the timing, it seems obvious that Obama didn't want to appear at a joint campaign event with Clinton until the shadow of indictment against her was lifted.

KD said...

hillary clinton crooked

If you google the above the top story it comes to is today's FBI Directors statements .

wphamilton said...

CHT it's already started. Andrew McCarthy, former US Attorney for the District of NY, opines that the FBI is attempting to re-write Federal Law by inserting a requirement of "clearly intentional". He lays out how the FBI report "checks off every box" for a statutory violation, but recommends against based on a requirement that is deliberately NOT part the statute.

There is no way that Clinton has clear skies now. Cover-ups and whitewashing is worse than the crime in American politics, and this is more likely to act as an accelerant than to put out the flames. Would you want to be Lynch, after a report like this? That lays out a clear case of guilt, recommending no charge, when you're already tainted by a conflict of interest? Not you specifically - I know you'd slap her in irons - but she's in a tough spot now.

Myballs said...

The law doesn't require intent. That's what we call gross negligence.

KD, Crooked Hillary said...

Raddatz: It is impossible for the FBI not to recommend criminal charges against Crooked Hillary Clinton. What she did was wrong! What Bill did was stupid!"

Only one funny thing about this and mizzzzz Raddatz, the Tweet from Trump did not included the word "Crooked".... mizzzz Raddatz added it all on her own.


opie' said...


The law doesn't require intent.

Unfortunately, Comey's words say otherwise. Precedent of other cases require intent for charges. Gross negligence is not a term that was used in the conference. That is what your side has used to perpetuate your bias.

opie' said...

former US Attorney for the District of NY, opines"

That and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. There will be a thousand more interpretations coming,but the fact remains trumps major campaign issue has been removed, now the what if's start and the rest of the political BS.

opie' said...


It looks like Comey was forced to go out and say what Loretta Lynch could no longer"

Let the left wing conspiracy theories begin. Now that you lost, you change the subject. No surprise there CH.

wphamilton said...

You've neglected my point Opie. This guy, and thousands more will be providing the background half the country needs to be utterly convinced of a whitewash. It's credible, expert legal opinion by professionals with experience.

It won't even buy me a cup of coffee, but it buys the Clintons a firestorm.

opie' said...

recommending no charges, a lot of time prefacing it with disclaimers.'

LOL....Ya got caught and now deny it. Funny. wp!

C.H. Truth said...

The question being... intent of what?

She didn't "intend" to send classified information through an unsecured server, that was not approved for such classified information?

As pointed out by the statutes involved

Which are clearly more objective than anyone's opinion.

The only intent that is required to be proven, is the intent to perform the action that breaks the law. In this case, she "intended" to send classified materials through an unauthorized server. Comey stated as such.

There is no "malicious intent" required. In fact by definition "negligence" is something that specifically comes without intent... but you can be still charged for being negligent. So yes, as being clearly pointed out by laywer after lawyer, Comey did indeed add a layer to the requirements.

opie' said...

C.H. Truth said...
The question being... intent of what?

Seems to me a rather simple question. Your pointing to the statues is just exhibit 1 of you not understanding what transpired. Next you will ape the gross negligence card, a term not used by comey, but every right wing expert I've seen. Yes she was stupid and admitted being wrong. Lets get out the tar and feathers and show her what justice really is because the system is rigged. Wow, once again, the system is rigged except when busch killed countless in his ill advised war he lied about.

"negligence" is something that specifically comes without intent... but you can be still charged for being negligent"

Maybe you should posit that to Comey and explain to him what an idiotic decision he made.;;; LOL

C.H. Truth said...

The simplest way to explain this:

There are some statutes that require malicious intent to be proven.

There are other statutes that require negligence to be proven.

So just because you do not have evidence of the first code... doesn't mean you don't charge with the second code. That has been the same argument all along here. That Hillary could only be charged with felony espionage, and short of proving that... she would skate.

That's a big pile of political bull shit and everyone knows it.

C.H. Truth said...

Maybe you should posit that to Comey and explain to him what an idiotic decision he made

Pretty sure that's already been pointed out by people with much more legal knowledge than you or I.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/comey-comedy-comey-comity.php

Here is one from a well known attorney who has written for RCP and the Weekly Standand... and has been published nationally on numerous ocassions.

opie' said...

thousands more will be providing the background half the country needs to be utterly convinced of a whitewash.

Your point was taken for what its worth, an opinion,is like rectums, everyone has one. The fact remains is that a major point has been taken away, and the political BS is just starting. Having been in the classified world my entire adult life, what she did was stupid, but would not be prosecuted in industry. She might be fired, but that's it. You can sure make a case she should be fired, but I really don't think she did anything but err and that is what your argument boils down to.

opie' said...

written for RCP and the Weekly Standard"

I'm sure it will be completely unbiased, just like you. Spilt milk is all you guys got.

wphamilton said...

Republicans already calling for a special prosecutor, citing the Lynch meeting (and other reasons). Carlos Beruff, just a candidate for the Senate, but less than an hour. Anyone care to accept the over-under challenge for a Republican consensus in Congress, or is it all snark here?

It's only been a few hours yet for legal scholars to chime in, and several have. What strikes me is this: is it possible to have a report that is more indicting of Clinton, without actually recommending indictment?

caliphate4vr said...



maybe put this at the top?

opie' said...

Comet said that the investigation yielded no evidence that Clinton had deliberately attempted to mislead investigators, and that her conduct did not meet the threshold used to prosecute past violators who shared classified information over unclassified channels.

Thanx for playing experts.

wphamilton said...

I'm not sure what private industry has to do with it, or what nature your "classified world" has, but if I did that in my job I'd not only be fired but I COULD be prosecuted (3 years and thousands in fines) and probably would be. And I don't deal with national security information.

It's not just stupidity that we're talking about, and not just my opinion. There's nothing surprising about Clintons staying out of jail, and they may be able to recover politically, but this doesn't help her election any.

opie' said...

Carlos Beruff, just a candidate for the Senate, but less than an hour."

The business man thief from Miani? Another worthless opinion!


TALLAHASSEE — Republican Carlos Beruff’s calling President Barack Obama an “animal” in a speech to a Republican gathering was condemned Monday by two of his rivals for a Florida U.S. Senate seat.
Beruff, already under watch after earlier calling for banning all Muslims from entering the U.S., made the comment about Obama in a speech last week to St. Johns County Republicans.


opie' said...

but I COULD be prosecuted "

Could be is a big opening doncha think. I worked in the defense industry with lots of sensitive technical information that many countries would love to have. And WP, I used the term industry, not private industry, which has different connotations than what I was posting, as you alluded. And yes, this is not helpful at all.

KD said...

OMG, Opium ads yet another job he has done in his work life, I recall he worked on a race car team , said he was successful at that too, now he worked at a high level in the defense industry, really?


To Protect and Defend = Hillary


I have to route this thru two private servers that my boss does not know I have then daily delete what I send ...


opie' said...

This pretty well summarizes my opinion of the repugs and the BS going on here. Never let fact get in the way of an opinion or rumor. !!

The Republican yearning to pin a scandal on Hillary Clinton knows no bounds. Any scandal will do, real or imagined. She must somehow be — or appear to be — guilty of something .

They tried Benghazi. Boy, did they try Benghazi. House Republicans even put together a special committee, which Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy praised for hurting Clinton’s chances of being elected president. “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” he said in September. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

To the GOP’s consternation, however, those numbers recovered nicely. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, she leads Donald Trump by about 5 points; the most recent Washington Post-ABC News survey showed her ahead by 12. Adding insult to injury, the Benghazi committee came up empty-handed. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the panel’s chairman, released a final report last week that found no smoking gun. In fact, it didn’t even find smoke.

Yes, it is a C&P

Commonsense said...

The phrase “extremely careless” is a wink at the gross-negligence standard in Section 793(f). The phrase “any reasonable person” is another. That’s how courts typically define negligence, as a failure to exhibit the same duty of care that a hypothetical “reasonable person” would exhibit. He’s telling you flat out here that she was negligent and then leaving you to infer from the rest of his remarks that her actions were so shockingly careless under the circumstances as to rise to the level of gross negligence — which means she’s guilty of violating 793(f).

In other words, Comey is outright telling you that she committed a crime but the powers that be in the administration doesn't want her prosecuted and wants cover for not prosecuting her.

Most corrupt administration in history.

Indy Voter said...

Clinton's actions don't rise to the level of gross negligence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gross+negligence

Commonsense said...

So if what Hillary did was not "a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury"

What was it?

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

12:51
Well, just in case anyone had difficulty finding that article, I will gladly help out.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/

And here are a few short comments from the article:

'...the FBI will recommend against criminal charges... stating that “no reasonable prosecutor” could determine charges were warranted here.

'It’s an announcement that will surprise no one who is familiar with the underlying law and ordinary Justice Department practices in a case such as this one.

'Nevertheless, in part because calls for a Clinton indictment were amplified by Republicans at the highest levels, and in part because of what Josh Marshall described as the media-industrial complex’s quest for “wingnut page views,” the idea that Clinton may face criminal charges has lingered for months.

'Here’s what you need to know about why such charges were never a realistic possibility.'
________________

Now, after that the article gets a bit complicated.
You can read the rest for yourselves.
The link's above. ;-)
______________
I guess now my "spam" comes a little closer to matching Commensa's "spam."

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Commensa, to do something conscious of evil intent is a lot different from doing something not conscious of evil intent.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

My original "spam" post was at 12:19PM

wphamilton said...

Anonymous opie' said...
recommending no charges, a lot of time prefacing it with disclaimers.'

LOL....Ya got caught and now deny it. Funny. wp!


What? It's exactly what I said it was, before you even looked up the transcript.

Are you really going there with me Opie? Do I need to go into the tedious detail that nobody enjoys?

C.H. Truth said...

Indy - 1924 and a few other statutes don't even address "gross negligence". They simply insist that the actions of knowingly obtaining and retaining classified materials (for whatever reasons) is a misdemeanor.

It was concluded by the FBI that 110 emails contained material that would have been considered classified at the time, some of them were even marked as such.

Comey used the "reasonable person standard" to conclude that any reasonable person in the job of Secretary of State would have (or should have) known they were classified and should not have been sent through, and retained on an unauthorized private server.

So he made the argument (based on the FBI findings) that met every single qualification for 1924 mishandling. But then, turned around and said there wasn't enough to prosecute because they could not show intent. That's what the confusion is about.

Again, I have asked this... and nobody seems to be able to answer.

It's impossible that Comey is suggesting she didn't "intend" to send, receive, or retain classified emails... since he spent the first 10 minutes of his announcement making sure that everyone understood that that is exactly what they found. That she knowingly sent classified emails on a system that she knew was not authorized.

So the only other explanation is that she was unaware that doing so was breaking the law... which could be viewed as not "intending" to break the law. But would anyone seriously contend that the Secretary of State could be assumed to not understand the legal consequences of sending classified information over an unauthorized server?

What is the most reasonable argument you can make that she didn't intend to break the law in this case?

Given the clear wording of 18 US code 1924?

wphamilton said...

Maybe it's the fact that I have to complete refreshers on handling protected information quarterly, and sign off on any access of certain kinds with what amounts to a sworn statement of where it was used, that the various civil and criminal penalties for misuse remain so fresh in my mind. Perhaps it's taken less seriously with Defense classified information, or intelligence that passes through State. But I have a hard time even imagining that to be the case.

The only reason I say "could" instead of "would" is that I can't speak for every State and Federal attorney who would have respective jurisdiction, and because the various criminal statutes are phrased that way. In no way can you assume that "could be charged" indicates some ambiguity or doubt about the applicability of criminal charges.

KD, Victory Lap on Air Force ONE said...

For the First time in my life, I feel that their are truly two classes of People in the UN-United States.

Those with power and money that can do as they want without restrictions or responsibility and then there are the rest of us.

Bernie and his voters where and are right.

wphamilton said...

What is the most reasonable argument you can make that she didn't intend to break the law in this case?

Given the clear wording of 18 US code 1924?


I'll take a shot at it.

She didn't care about the law at all, and therefore had no intent to either break the law nor to abide by it. Since there was no evidence found that she actually intended for some unauthorized person to have it, intent is missing.

That's not something I'd want to argue, but as devil's advocate it's the most "reasonable" argument I can make for it.

More to the point, the FBI's recommendation appeared to hinge not so much on the literal law, but on precedent of prosecutions. Previous prosecutions held in common - according to the Director - that the defendant deliberately intended for some unauthorized person to gain access to the information.

KD, said...

How does the FBI know that they found all of her pvt email servers?

IF anyone else would have done what she did, they would have been charged.

I understand now, for the first time in my life that the Elitist like Clinton's can do anything they want without responsibility or consequence.

wphamilton said...

Anonymous KD, Victory Lap on Air Force ONE said...
For the First time in my life, I feel that their are truly two classes of People in the UN-United States.


At the very least, one loses confidence in the impartiality of the FBI.

Even here in my own household, my wife is or was 100% Obama supporter, strongly opposed to Trump and the Republican Party agenda of recent Congresses, yet I am having to explain how there might not be a cover-up, that there is no evidence of extortion and threats and we don't even know for sure that secret meetings lead to secret deals.

Yet this is kind of blatant. After the President backed the candidate, his position on potential charges declared on the national podium, Bill Clinton's secret meeting, and the timing ... and when all of Hillary's defensive claims were shown by the investigation to be incorrect or outright lies, it is now almost impossible to convince someone who suspected political pressure that it can now even possibly be a legitimate result.

If the FBI has become political again, we're in for some pain until that gets cleared up. If ever.

KD, The Stench that comes with the Clinton's said...

My son that is off at College has asked me about this, I gave him the same assessment I stated here.

I have told him in the past that this is the first time in my life that I felt the sitting US President did not have the best interest of this nation in his heart.

I feel for FBI Director Comey, I do, he did not want to indict her because she is running to continue the Socialistization of the UN-United States. His statement was and will always stand as pure BUll SHIT, it smells, it has that same stench as the Clinton's.

Commonsense said...

Commensa, to do something conscious of evil intent is a lot different from doing something not conscious of evil intent.

Really? Someone who drives recklessly is not conscientiously driving with evil intent but the pedestrian he hits is just as dead.

And he is charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Director James Comey's scathing criticism of her "extremely careless" behavior revitalized Republican attacks and guaranteed the issue will continue to dog her.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Director James Comey's scathing criticism of her "extremely careless" behavior revitalized Republican attacks and guaranteed the issue will continue to dog her.

Indy Voter said...

As it should.

C.H. Truth said...

That's probably the best analogy here...

Yes, I got drunk, yes I drove, yes I blew a 1.2... But it wasn't my intention to break the law or harm anyone.

Oh, well... if your intention was not to break the law or harm anyone, I guess we cannot charge you with a DUI.

Indy Voter said...

That was a defense that worked here about six years ago after a very drunk driver (BAC 0.24 or higher) drove head on into a car full of teenagers, killing four and badly injuring the fifth. His attorney claimed the other car was in his lane (something never proven) so the fact the driver was dead drunk couldn't be used against him. He was acquitted on the vehicular homicide charges, and because it had been presumed he would be going away the time limit for taking away his license had expired.

He has been arrested for DUI/DWI three times since then.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Didn't he say something to the effect that the "extremely careless behavior" characterized a lot that had gone on in such circles even before her time?

Didn't he say something to the effect that if that was not chargeable then, neither should it be now?

Just asking.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Somebody put up a thread with his entire statement as lead article.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

COMEY SAID: While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

wphamilton said...

In the Hillary State Department, James. This kind of thing usually flows downhill.

I don't recall anything in Comey's statement about previous State Departments.

C.H. Truth said...

Didn't he say something to the effect that the "extremely careless behavior" characterized a lot that had gone on in such circles even before her time?

No. He said no such thing. Everything he referred to was in regards to the State Department under Clinton. There was no investigation into any other secretary of state or the state department under anyone else. He stated that Clinton "and her colleagues" were extremely careless, and that "culture" of the State Department in general showed a lacking in the care of classified information. That all would have been based "exclusively" on his investigation into Clinton's server.

C.H. Truth said...

And WP is correct James...

Since Hillary was in charge of the entire State Department, such an overall indictment to the culture, would work to further harm her credibility as a leader.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

The "culture of the State Department" only came into existence when Clinton came into office? Surely you jest.

C.H. Truth said...

The "culture of the State Department" only came into existence when Clinton came into office?

Comey wouldn't know. He only investigated the Clinton State Department.

C.H. Truth said...

James, in terms of your C&P (which I deleted)... I watched several cable news shows, and saw several people interviewed. Interestingly I heard four former prosecutors (on three different shows on three different networks)... and three of the four suggested that based on the evidence presented by Comey, that they would have taken this case to a Grand Jury to see if they would have found cause.

The same three all suggested that it's the investigator's job to gather the facts and the evidence, not to determine if charges are to be brought. The suggestion is that Comey overstepped his authority.

My personal opinion is that this announcement was always scheduled for today (as the President had been holding off campaigning with Hillary until this was settled, but had this trip scheduled for several days). I believe that it was originally supposed to be Lynch's announcement, not Comey's. But that the Clinton meeting made that, all but impossible. So it was on Comey to make the case.

The fact was that while he said that his speech was not provided to or coordinated with anyone else, he never actually stated that his conclusions were not. As long as he did not forward the speech to Lynch or Obama, his statement was accurate. I also wonder out loud if they would have allowed his speech, knowing how bad he hammered her.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Anyone knows that the Justice Department can still bring charges if it feels such charges are justified.

Yes, Ch you did delete the portion of Comey's statement that I put here. I have put it at 10:50PM on Roger's section of the blog for those who want to see it.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...


I suppose you most disliked these following two paragraphs which indicate that the "culture" of the Justice Department was not just confined to Clinton's tenure:

COMEY: "Setting aside the bare language of the law, there’s also a very important practical reason why officials in Clinton’s position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd. For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, “’it’s common’ that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information.” “’It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.’ People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.”

THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE: Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

10:40 What a lot of conspiracy sounding speculation.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases 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.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
____________________________________
There is no precedence to bring charges on this and he made it perfectly clear, in this section of the statemen.

KD said...

Director James Comey's scathing criticism of her "extremely careless" behavior revitalized Republican attacks and guaranteed the issue will continue to dog her." HB

But look at whom HB blames, he Blames FBI Director Comey and the Republicans, not the active actions of a very stupid woman and her minions.

Was anyone else taken a back by the fact that She did not set up just ONE private server but many?

The time line of the last week has that very familiar Stench of the Clinton's.

To Defend and Protect = Hillary


KD, said...

To be clear what we have seen over the last week is a concert of the Sitting President, the sitting AG and the FBI Director doing only one thing , all against the best interest of the USA.

Protect and Defend = Hillary


Which Democrat has spoken out against this RAW Use of Political Power and the Elitist State?

Surely their is still some Democrat that is not totally blind ?

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

As for Comey's harsh criticisms of Clinton,
one commentator said that in a normal election year she would be in trouble---
BUT
this is not a normal election year.