No need even to get mad at Comey. He knows better than anyone just what he has done. And all the men and women serving under him at FBI also know.

Have a good life, Mr. Comey.

I wonder if Crazy Bernie regrets shielding Hilary from the email questions in their debate a few months ago?

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
As far as your comment about "continuing to spin on this stuff" being a waste of time, you are likely correct that thousands of pages of outrage on various internet forums won't accomplish anything directly, but you seem to be taking an approach 180 degrees opposite - namely, to accept without question, discussion, or critical analysis, the conclusions and talking points of those on the left, and simply move on.

If you don't want to be bothered with the discussion, I would respectfully suggest (and I do mean it respectfully) that you are wasting your own time hanging out in this particular thread.

-Rob

Thanks again, Rob.

I am interested in the discussion. But I take issue with the idea that Comey is a traitor or taking a dive or however someone wants to phrase it, along with all the claims of runaway corruption in this instance.

You've pointed out yourself that he didn't say nothing happened, only that they chose not to bring charges based on the evidence they have. And that's how I see it, too. But as you well know, that's how the system works.

And unfortunately, the bar is higher if you're going to try to prosecute a former cabinet member and presidential nominee, to boot. Charging her with a misdemeanor would have been laughable. Bringing charges against her in a case he didn't think he would win and that broke with years of precedent would have been irresponsible.

I can't stand Hillary or Bill or any of their cronies. They're corrupt and really good at it. It's infuriating.

But I think Comey did his job and went where the facts led him. I don't think he had what he needed to demonstrate intent or clearly make a case for gross negligence, which I imagine is a very difficult thing to prove.

quote:

He didn't say no prosecution was recommended

why do you say that?

direct Comey quote:

"Our view that no charges are appropriate in this case"

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
But I take issue with the idea that Comey is a traitor or taking a dive or however someone wants to phrase it, along with all the claims of runaway corruption in this instance.

If you intend to defend that sellout bastard Comey in this forum, you'd better bring your damn lunch, and you'll have to get past me first.

Rudy Gulianni just stated that the statute of limitations will not run out on this before the next POTUS assumes office. Next AG could bring charges. Perhaps more than just an election at stake for Hillary?

quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:
Rudy Gulianni just stated that the statute of limitations will not run out on this before the next POTUS assumes office. Next AG could bring charges. Perhaps more than just an election at stake for Hillary?

Nice idea that Trump, if elected, would do it. But if he wins, I don't think he would. It will be old news by then, and be seen as a vindictive, dick move. The DNC should do everything in their power to rid themselves of the Clintons if they want to go forward.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

He didn't say no prosecution was recommended

why do you say that?

direct Comey quote:

"Our view that no charges are appropriate in this case"

Yeah, I know. I've been the one quoting him.

Let me define the terms as best I can...

Charges are executable manifestations (charging documents or some other form) of objective evidence that a statute or other chargable law or regulation has been violated.

Prosecution is the discretionary act of acting on charges.

No charges are appropriate is a far different thing than no prosecution is recommended.

One could say in certain circumstances that various charges are appropriate, but for whatever reason, no prosecution is recommended.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
Bringing charges against her in a case he didn't think he would win and that broke with years of precedent would have been irresponsible.

It's not his job to determine what is winnable and what is not. That's up to the DOJ attorneys who would be prosecuting the case. (That's why justifiable charges vs. appropriate to prosecute is so important here.)

As for the other part, that I bolded in the quote above - that's just pure bullshit. Do some googling on prosecutions for secrecy act violations and you'll find plenty of examples of folks who got sent up the river for far, far less.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
As far as your comment about "continuing to spin on this stuff" being a waste of time, you are likely correct that thousands of pages of outrage on various internet forums won't accomplish anything directly, but you seem to be taking an approach 180 degrees opposite - namely, to accept without question, discussion, or critical analysis, the conclusions and talking points of those on the left, and simply move on.

If you don't want to be bothered with the discussion, I would respectfully suggest (and I do mean it respectfully) that you are wasting your own time hanging out in this particular thread.

-Rob

Thanks again, Rob.

I am interested in the discussion. But I take issue with the idea that Comey is a traitor or taking a dive or however someone wants to phrase it, along with all the claims of runaway corruption in this instance.

You've pointed out yourself that he didn't say nothing happened, only that they chose not to bring charges based on the evidence they have. And that's how I see it, too. But as you well know, that's how the system works.

And unfortunately, the bar is higher if you're going to try to prosecute a former cabinet member and presidential nominee, to boot. Charging her with a misdemeanor would have been laughable. Bringing charges against her in a case he didn't think he would win and that broke with years of precedent would have been irresponsible.

I can't stand Hillary or Bill or any of their cronies. They're corrupt and really good at it. It's infuriating.

But I think Comey did his job and went where the facts led him. I don't think he had what he needed to demonstrate intent or clearly make a case for gross negligence, which I imagine is a very difficult thing to prove.

Comey appointed himself prosecutor and determined that he couldn't make a case. He claimed to have evidence of "extreme carelessness" with regard to the handling of sensitive classified information. That is all he needed. He should have said that the FBI discovered such evidence and passed it on to the DOJ to determine if prosecution was warranted. Instead, he took it upon himself to evaluate the evidence, interpret the statute and decide for himself that prosecution wasn't warranted. He greatly overstepped his bounds. "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 should have ended the sentence before the comma. We have actual prosecutors at the DOJ. We don't need Comey to speculate as to what a hypothetical reasonable prosecutor would do.

Even worse, his analysis was legally incorrect. Intent is simply not an element of the crime. As someone posted from an article above, Comey rewrote the law to include an element that Congress not only didn't include but specifically rejected by using a different standard.

In short, he had evidence that Clinton was grossly negligent in handling classified info. That is a crime and should have been referred as such to the DOJ. If they want to decline to prosecute, let them take the political heat for it. It is not the FBI's job to do what Comey did.

Exit question: Is there anything now, beyond administrative policy, to prevent any government official from setting up a similar personal email system in their homes?

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
Not exactly, but that's why courts are created - to find fact. It only takes a suggestion of the reasonable possibility of a guilty verdict to support an indictment. In any other case, this would be an easy bill.

What is the saying "A DA could indictment for a ham sandwich if he wanted to."

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
But I take issue with the idea that Comey is a traitor or taking a dive or however someone wants to phrase it, along with all the claims of runaway corruption in this instance.

He quick stepped out of that room a true coward. He could not look the American people in the eye, let alone allow for questions. Fuck him.

The statutes I've read include both "intent" and "gross negligence". None of them use the word "extreme carelessness", which is why I imagine he carefully chose those words.

The DOJ still can prosecute. It's not the FBI's job to send the evidence with a recommendation? Isn't that what the DOJ was expecting to get from them?

quote:

Comey appointed himself prosecutor and determined that he couldn't make a case. He claimed to have evidence of "extreme carelessness" with regard to the handling of sensitive classified information. That is all he needed. He should have said that the FBI discovered such evidence and passed it on to the DOJ to determine if prosecution was warranted. Instead, he took it upon himself to evaluate the evidence, interpret the statute and decide for himself that prosecution wasn't warranted. He greatly overstepped his bounds. "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 should have ended the sentence before the comma. We have actual prosecutors at the DOJ. We don't need Comey to speculate as to what a hypothetical reasonable prosecutor would do.

Even worse, his analysis was legally incorrect. Intent is simply not an element of the crime. As someone posted from an article above, Comey rewrote the law to include an element that Congress not only didn't include but specifically rejected by using a different standard.

In short, he had evidence that Clinton was grossly negligent in handling classified info. That is a crime and should have been referred as such to the DOJ. If they want to decline to prosecute, let them take the political heat for it. It is not the FBI's job to do what Comey did.

Uh-oh.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
The statutes I've read include both "intent" and "gross negligence". None of them use the word "extreme carelessness", which is why I imagine he carefully chose those words.

Gross negligence is the lack of any care or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or to others.

"extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do...." Sounds similar to 'Extreme carelessness' to me.

I wonder if the collateral damage was too much. In other words, they prosecute her, they have to prosecute all those that received, disseminated/transmitted/forwarded her emails to others.

Probably would take down half the administration. And all of those in powerful positions.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
I wonder if the collateral damage was too much. In other words, they prosecute her, they have to prosecute all those that received, disseminated/transmitted/forwarded her emails to others.

Probably would take down half the administration. And all of those in powerful positions.

Interesting point. There was no mention of underlings removing classified markings. No mention of sharing info with Sid Blumenthal, no mention of federal record keeping laws and FOIA requirements. Comey focused only on Clinton and only on one potential charge.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

...Exit question: Is there anything now, beyond administrative policy, to prevent any government official from setting up a similar personal email system in their homes?

I'm certain the answer is yes, dealing more with records retention (and FOIA requests) than classification/security issues. These provide some general info about retention:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...g-government-records

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sit...nda/2012/m-12-18.pdf

I'm sure other members can easily find similar policies that deal with email security.

Ladies and gentlemen, it should be clear by now that no one will save us but us. We would ne wise to learn correct principle and evangelize them to all who will listen, but vote for the most conservative person who can win regardless. No one will save us but us. The battle for liberty is desperate and continual. I extend to you all the same counsel given to me by Mrs. DF: Don't you dare give up on us in the middle of battle.

Amen, darthfuster.