FBI director must be able to read Hillary’s mind

“18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

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

What does it take for reckless disregard or being “extremely careless” to become tantamount to knowingly and willfully?

Comey must be a mind reader. How else would he be able to determine Hillary did not knowingly and willfully fail to protect classified information from disclosure?

She should have known, he said, but she was clueless, careless and reckless. Excellent recommendation for a president.

James Comey, FBI director. (AP photo)

Advertisements

110 comments on “FBI director must be able to read Hillary’s mind

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    WHat would a person with skill at reading body languate say of Comey’s speech? I said earlier that nothing would come of this and also that the FBI was used by the powers behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy to cover her tracks on this issue, what better source to say there was nothing criminal in her actions? In effect, the nation’s premier law enforcement agency, the FBI, cleared the runway for her. Comey’s reward will be to remain in office for a while, making his eventual resignation appear unconnected to his shameful surrender to political pressure. He should be ashamed, how is he going to be able to look in the eyes of the sincere dedicated agents that investigated the allegations against Clinton? The FBI and its director are now just more detritus in the wake of the Clintons.

  2. Steve says:

    Now this has been cleared by bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, it becomes the property of politics.
    Precisely where the Clinton’s wanted it all along.
    Now Trump will go gang busters “trump”etting it all over the media, who will swallow it up as fast as their readers pay for the drivel.

    The mudslinging resulting from this will be epic and will serve to distract people from real issues and our future. It will also ensure the status quo remains in power unless voters open their eyes and seek options to the two, virtually identical, major parties.

  3. nyp says:

    Actually, he never said that she was reckless.

  4. Bill says:

    Tom, I don’t understand you. Today, 2 hours before President Obama and Hillary Clinton embarked on a previously planned political trip on Air Force One to campaign in North Carolina, the FBI Director reinforced the well known political truism, that THERE ARE DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS.”

    Now, we can now totally disregard any further allegations that Mrs. Clinton violated any law while Secretary of State. Her previous history of openess and truthfulness are well known. As a result of today’s announcement, we can now openly castigate any if her critics as members of that right wing conspiracy who have, under the false banner of open government and accountability engineered this assault on Mrs. Clinton’s conduct and her truthfulness.

    This has all been an unfortunate incident, best buried and forgotten. This is, as we all know, the most transparent administration in the history of the United States. As for national security, I am not concerned because Admiral Kirby assured me this morning that there was nothing wrong with the State Department’s policies and procedures as it relates to private servers, emails or classified information. I will sleep easier tonight.

    Personally, I am relieved that the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate has, in Director Comey’s opinion done nothing that a prosecutor could have convicted her of. That is such a relief.

    I, too am personally relieved that Ms. Clinton did not do anything intentionally but was possibly only guilty of gross negligence and there is no way of proving, as some have alleged, that her private email server on which she transmitted classified material was ever hacked or compromised. Perhaps we will learn more from Wikileaks.

    I am so pleased to have this unfortunate incident behind us and if anyone brings up the subject again, I will resoundingly, forcefully and loudly say: “What difference does it make now?”. Any further inquiry of misfeasance or malfeasance is nothing more than political persecution and reminiscent of those who questioned President Obama’s policies or statements. They just wanted him to fail, just as Mrs. Clinton’s detractor’s want her to fail..

    As for me, I will pay no heed to those cynics who point out the exquisite timing of all of these events. Only a partisan cynic would question the secret meeting by Bill Clinton with the Attorney General that was unearthed by that increasing rarity called an “honest” reporter. Any speculation that the meeting of the former President, disbarred for perjury lawyer but still renowned public speaker who received millions of dollars in speaking fees while his wife was attorney general, had anything to do with the Justice Department’s investigation into he or his wife or their foundation is totally irresponsible speculation.

    In today’s world, we need not involve ourselves with such things as laws, regulations, procedures or improprieties of those charged with administering or enforcing those matters. Heaven forbid that the public or any watchdogs of the public should involve themselves with anything so arcane as the appearance of impropriety of a meeting between the head of the Justice Department and the husband of a target of an investigation by the FBI whose foundation received millions from foreign sources while his wife was Secretary of State. To those who say that this gave the appearance of an impropriety by a public official and possibly violated the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics, I say, shame on you. Anyone who doubts that the the meeting (for which Clinton delayed his airplane’s departure) was about anything other than Clinton’s golf game and their grandchildren must be guilty some sort of phobia. After all,if you raise a question about illegal immigration you are xenophobic. If you call things like Major Hassan, San Bernardino, Paris, Brussels, Twin World Trade Center, etc. Muslim terrorism you are promptly labeled as Islamophobic, So if you question or complain, chose your own label. You can be Hillary-phobic, Clinton-phobic, conspiracy phobic,etc.

    Finally, I was much relieved to hear the Attorney General fully explain after her secret meeting with Bill Clinton was revealed that in order to eliminate any suggestion of impropriety caused by that meeting that although it was her sole decision to make, she was going to follow the FBI’s recommendation concerning any criminal prosecution.

    I thought this a thoughtful and measured response. This still caused me some concern because there was always the possibility that her immediate subordinate, FBI Director Comey and in turn, his subordinate FBI Agents might return a recommendation for prosecution despite the fact that the POTUS had previously declared her innocent of any wrongdoing and publicly endorsed her. There was no way for me to predict what Director Comey would recommend or that this recommendation would come just two days before a scheduled trip on Air Force One by the President and Mrs. Clinton to campaign in North Carolina. My God, think of the potential trouble that could have been caused if some unsuspecting FBI agent did not hear nor heed the clear signals being given. Thankfully, they did not and I would presume that their careers are safe.

    What exquisite timing that two hours before the scheduled departure of Air Force One, the AG’s subordinate, Director Comey, made his announcement and that in his opinion there was not enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton.

    Is it any wonder that Trump is resonating with the public?

  5. Patrick says:

    I wonder how much money the far right wing has caused the American taxpayer to spend on these “investigations” of the Clintons since Bill first decided to run for Governor those many years ago?

    There are of course way too many to count during Bill’s terms; WhiteWater, HairCut on the Tarmac Gate, Travel Gate, White Trash Gate and others, long before Hillary became Public Right Wing Enemy number one.

    Then the far right moved on to BengaziGate, TaxGate, and EmailGate, during all these investigations, the far right crowed about how horrible the Clintons were, and how they now have the goods on them and boy is that electric chair about to be fired up cause this is bad.

    Well, hundreds of millions of dollars later, with nothing coming out of any of these investigations but right wing AM radio ratings, the latest is that Hillary really didn’t do anything that could be prosecuted. Shocker. Now, if those right wingers were true to their word about being “champions” of the US Constitution, and had faith in our system of justice; I.e. Innocent until proven guilty. This would be the end of it. Course we know better than that cause, there’s still rumors and such, and God knows, hawking gold and survivor gear don’t come easy if the far right wing talking heads on the radio ain’t got a good Clinton conspiracy theory going, so it will not go quietly into that good night.

    Interestingly, just before he was fired for trying to keep sexual allegations quiet at his Texas religious school, former Clinton prosecutor, and hero/puppet of the far right wing, had some real interesting (incredibly positive) things to say about the Clintons.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/us/politics/ken-starr-impeachment-bill-clinton.html?_r=0

    Maybe, he’s the most informed source out there, regarding the Clintons, what after spending all those millions and millions of dollars “stolen” from the American taxpayer at the “barrel of a gun” to fund his very “objective” investigation.

  6. synonyms for careless: 1. inattentive, incautious, unwary, indiscreet, reckless. 2. inaccurate, negligent. 3. unthoughtful, unmindful. 4. thoughtless, forgetful; inconsiderate.

  7. nyp says:

    So, when Director Comey said that Hillary Clinton and her aides had been “careless” he meant that they had been forgetful and unwary?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Comey: “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.”

  9. Comey: “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.”

  10. Bill says:

    Different strokes for different folks. I didn’t say it, the FBI Director did.

  11. nyp says:

    Clearly careless to have conducted State Department business on a personal server. You are entitled to see it — as a I do — as a lapse in judgment that should count against any assessment of her ability to make good judgments as President.

    But your attempts to shoehorn the sloppy use of personal servers into a criminal offense are laughable.

  12. Sloppy? Her ‘intent’ was to be able to keep things secret and avoid the FOIA.

  13. Steve says:

    I think all official correspondence conducted via private means is still subject to FOIA.

    The real problem is a lack of evidence on which prosecutorial action would rely.

  14. So much for “straight shooter” Comey. I remember when the same balderdash was being bandied about concerning Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Only one thing is patently obvious…this is one of the most corrupt administrations ever to hold court in Washington DC. This whole information “dump” was orchestrated from start (Loretta’s tarmac meeting with Slick Willy) to finish (Hillary’s informal Saturday July 3rd questioning by the FBI, Comey’s laying out the evidence for indictment and then throwing it all out the window, to Obama & Hillary’s Dog and Pony Campaign show on Air Force one on our dime!). Sick…twisted…and warped. The only thing that can stop this downward slide into the sewer…is to put a bunch of six penny nails in Hillary’s campaign coffin at the ballot box this December. And after today…that sounds like a pipe dream.

  15. Steve says:

    Can’t really hold it against Comey….after all, would YOU want to turn up dead under mysterious circumstances?

  16. Bill says:

    Don’t give up hope HighFlyin. This could have the effect of galvanizing those of the American Public that will not be content with drinking the Jim Jones style of political Kool-Aid that says “my candidate, right or wrong” and ignores lies, corruption and minor matters like national security. We can hope. It is a sad commentary that Hillary has told more egregious lies in both number and gravity than Brian Williams and still remains the national candidate for President for the Democrat Party.

  17. Steve says:

    AP is fact checking the devil out of Clinton claims for her handling of the emails…..the court of public opinion is not looking very friendly!

  18. Bill says:

    Intentionally setting up a server in her own home to avoid using the government server is merely a lapse in judgment? Why does this sound like something from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland? If it is shown that her insecure system was hacked by foreign enemies, will you excuse that as simply an unfortunate consequence of her minor temporary “lapse in judgment” of setting up and utilizing an insecure server free from governmental and private scrutiny?. If so, then We need not even address the issue of her erasing the hard drive and burning all of her official schedules.

  19. Nyp says:

    So I guess you think Colin Powell should be charged with a criminal offense as well.

  20. Barbara says:

    Director Comey revealed himself to be nothing more than a political hack. Section 793 of the Espionage Act reads:

    (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    In his statement, Comey made the case of multiple violations of Section 793 by Hillary Clinton and her attorneys. Intent is not required – only gross negligence. By Comey’s own words, this is a slam duck prosecution.

    The law is meaningless unless we have someone willing to enforce it. The Republicans have allowed numerous violations of the law by officials in the Obama administration over the last 8 years. It is not surprising that such a clear cut case of law breaking will again be dropped.

    It is abundantly clear that we have a ruling elite to which the law does not apply. No clearer evidence exists that the United States has ceased to exist as a Constitutional Republic.

  21. Patrick says:

    “No clearer example?”

    So, conservative hero Ronald Reagan admits that not only did he send arms to the Iranians who had held Americans hostage, and then sent the money to El salvadorian terrorists that later used some of the money to kill 4 American nuns, he admitted to lying, under oath, that Pakistan was complying with nuclear non-proliferation treaties, so that he could continue to send guns to terrorists in Pakistan, which weapons and aid would later be used to kill Americans fighting Pakistani terrorists.

    Oh, and of course, the nuclear technology that passed from AQ Khans network, which was well known by Reagan to be sending nuclear technology to Syria, Iran, North Korea and Iraq (countries another “conservative” claimed were part of some made for Hollywood group of bad guys called the “axis of evil”) which countries would then form the enemy this country has spent trillions of American taxpayer dollars to fight for the last 30 years since Reagan clearly provided evidence that our beloved “Constitutional Republic” no longer exists.

  22. Patrick says:

    Clearer evidence that the rules don’t apply to the ruling elite, and that our beloved Constitutional Republic is no more.

    “The various Iran-Contra investigations soon uncovered a plethora of legal violations. The covert arms sales to Iran violated numerous statutes that restricted the transfer of arms to nations that support international terrorism, principally the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Pub. L. No. 90-629, 89 Stat. 1320 [22 U.S.C.A. §§ 2751–2796c (1989 Supp.)]). By failing to report the Iranian sales to Congress, the Reagan administration had ignored reporting provisions in the 1980 Intelligence Oversight Act (Pub. L. No. 96-450, tit. IV, 407(b) (1), 94 Stat. 1981 [50 U.S.C.A. § 413 (1982)]). That law required the president to notify Congress in a timely fashion of any “significant anticipated intelligence activity, and to make a formal written “finding” (declaration) that each covert operation was important to national security. Three findings were at issue in the Iran-Contra affair: (1) Not only had President Reagan failed to report the first arms sales, but he had also authorized them through Israeli intermediaries by “oral” findings that were not authorized by intelligence oversight statutes. (2) The central intelligence agency (CIA) justified a second shipment of arms to the Iranians through a “retroactive” finding issued by the CIA’s general counsel; Poindexter admitted destroying this finding. (3) President Reagan admitted signing a third written finding, in January 1986, but later claimed he had never read it.”

    Now what was the result again of Secretary Clintons alleged actions? I mean, other than higher ratings for AM talk show hosts and gold sales to the folks who listen to those broadcasts?

  23. Bill says:

    What does this have to do with the present controversy? Is the logic that by showing alleged past bad acts of some 30 years ago by a Republican administration it is an excuse to the present acts of a former Secretary of State under the current administration? Why don’t we bring up the scandals associated with President Grant, Grover Cleveland, Andrew Jackson and Chester A. Arthur which would be just about as relevant. Our concerns should be about what is presently happening not what we have no power to change. The issue today, involves Hillary, Bill, James, Loretta, Barack and several other players in this bizaare and byzantine investigation.

  24. Steve says:

    Don’t try to confuse Patrick with current events. He’s all about obfuscation and sham inspired delays.

  25. Patrick says:

    Bill:

    Mostly it has to do with what another poster said immediately above my two comments above. That’s the problem with these boards I suppose, although by quoting that posters remark about “not being clearer.” And “our Constitutional republic” I tried to be as clear as possible that my comments were in response to that post.

    On response to you however, these historical references are relevant in my opinion, to demonstrate that the conduct of others, in prior administrations were much worse, and yet, mostly ignored by the law, particularly when it came to those having the ultimate authority and responsibility for the misdeeds.

    And it’s tough for me to understand the reaction of those people on the right, professed lovers of the Constitution and all, loudly proclaiming how our beloved Constitutional republic clearly doesn’t exist because Secretary Clinton wasn’t charged, when an admitted criminal like conservative hero Ronald Reagan got away Scott free to their loud, constant, and blind praise.

  26. Bill says:

    The finding of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails was that from the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains were determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent. Recall too that Hillary Clinton lied to the American people when she said that no mails sent over her private server contained classified information. ..

    Now, that may not bother someone with ethical tunnel vision or an ideologue who puts partisanship over rationality but it should be a cause for concern for most Americans who have an obligation to be concerned about out National Security and who have a right to expecgt our governmental officials to conduct affairs of state honestly and carefully.

    Read Comey’s remarks again. He did not say that no crime had been committed only that a conviction might be unlikely.

  27. Steve says:

    Precisely.

    Hence the sham, obfuscation and attack. Patrick has nothing to support her with in this issue.

  28. Patrick says:

    Innocent until proven guilty I say; unless of course you admit you’re guilty.

    Like Reagan did.

    And only a partisan hack, with no regard for the Constitution, or the American system of Justice, would believe that an accused becomes a criminal because a prosecutor says whatever Comey said.

    It’s not like the democrats were in charge of the LONG Congressional investigation that found Secretary Clinton did nothing wrong with regard to Bengazi even while the talking radio heads and conservatives were singing her death knell about it. The right wing sure hasn’t rolled over and played dead with the Clintons because they loved them. No, these partisan hacks spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in an effort to find ANYTHING they could use to stop Bill and Hillary. And, at the end of it, what they came up with was a husband cheating on his wife and lying about it.

    And the right wing wonders how it is, how insane it is, that an FBI investigation came up with “there’s something there, but it’s not prosecutable”? Seriously?

    Chalk it up to another witch hunt and you’ll be closer to the truth than you know.

    Emails. Pfftt.

  29. BLBilyeu@aol.com says:

    Patrick, if I misinterpreted I am sorry but perhaps your concern with the destruction of our Constitutional Republic would be clearer if you focused in on what the current issue under discussion is since it is immediate and now and is something which the existing (not the past) public has a right to know. It is also something current for which people can and should be held accountable. Reciting what the past evils of past Republican Administrations might have been is an argument for editing history books, everyone knows that there is no remedy for matters upon which the statute of limitations has long ago run. And, if your concern is solely for our constitutional republic it might be helpful if you left out some of the pejoratives about conservatives. I will accept your statement that you are only concerned with our Republic but It does seem that you are more concerned with defending Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration than anything else. If this is not correct, my apologies.

  30. Steve says:

    Bill, you nailed it. Patrick is as partisan as they get.

  31. Patrick says:

    BLB:

    Mostly I have problems with hypocrisy.

    I have no problem with saying that if probable cause exists to show that Hillary any law, she ought to be prosecuted for the violation to the same extent as anyone else. Furthermore, if she is was prosecuted, and found guilty, she ought to receive a sentence for that conviction like anyone else.

    Having said that, especially on this very conservative board, and from most of the posters, you won’t hear that a republican or conservative should be treated in the same fashion. I have problems with that.

    If everyone was reasonable, it makes it easier to be reasonable. But, on these boards, that’s not what we generally get, so it’s easy to fall into being a partisan if not to defend, then definitely to attack others on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

    Anyone being reasonable with me, will get the same in return. I hope that includes you.

  32. Bill says:

    I am usually reasonable and fair, especially with those who agree with me. If you dislike hypocrisy, as do I, then try to do what I try to do, and that is to examine my own statements and thought processes. I am not always successful but I try. I am saddened by what happened today. At a time when the public has little confidence in our elected leaders, the Director of the FBI set forth a bill of particulars that in many legal scholars views, was a clear cut case for a referral of this matter to a grand jury. It is not his responsibility to refer matters to a grand jury. It is the responsibility of the appropriate U. S. Attorney, and in this case it is Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, who a few day earlier ducked that responsibility by saying that she would defer to the the FBI. Look at the facts, the chronology and then apply the reasonable man test. The events of this day smell to high heaven and have seriously hurt the perceived integrity and impartiality of the FBI and the Justice Department. That is sad. It is a sad day for the United States and a sad day for the rule of law.

  33. Nyp says:

    Say what you will about Sadam Hussein, at least he didn’t use a private email server.

  34. Navy reservist was was sentenced to two years probation and fined $7,500 of ‘unintentionally’ mishandling classified material.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2015-doj-prosecutes-a-naval-reservist-for-mishandling-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/

  35. nyp says:

    David Petraeus deliberately gave notebooks filled with top secret material to his journalist mistress so that she could use the material in writing a book.

    Hillary Clinton sent and received emails from a private server.

  36. nyp says:

    Bryan H. Nishimura deliberately removed classified materials from secure computers while in Afganistan, and then brought them to the US at the end of his deployment. He had no authorization to view the materials, to remove them or to bring them to the United States, where he stored them at his home When he was found out, he tried to destroy the evidence.

    Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, sent and received emails from a private server.

  37. Steve says:

    Hillary Clinton deliberately placed classified information in a public place where anyone could find it.

    The only difference is, in her case, she is a much better snake in the grass.

  38. nyp says:

    “a public place where anyone could find it ”

    you are whack

  39. Steve says:

    Funny….no, my job is Information Technology.
    Her server was as public as any other.
    Easily opened for perusal by any who had interest in doing so.

    Now, it is a fact, government servers and Blackberry’s are so locked down as to be almost useless. But this is still no reason to be storing classified information in a place where anyone could find it.

  40. nyp says:

    Really. Can you explain to us how we may gain access to Thomas Mitchell’s email?

  41. Steve says:

    You want me to instruct you in hacking a server…..snake alert!

    He posts his email on the site. He doesn’t have a private server. You go figure out how to hack into Yahoo.

  42. nyp says:

    “a public place where anyone can find it …”

  43. Steve says:

    Yup…easily done.

  44. nyp says:

    please demonstrate.

  45. Steve says:

    Nyp wants me to commit a felony for him (or her) in either case, Nyp is anonymous.

    18 U.S. Code § 1030 – Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

  46. nyp says:

    but nevertheless, anyone could have obtained access to Hillary Clinton’s server. Just like anyone could hack Thomas Mitchell’s emails.

  47. Steve says:

    Of course. The information is readily available for those interested in doing those things.
    My job is worth more to me than showing you how to do them.

  48. Trey Gowdy grills Comey…on “intent.”

  49. Bill says:

    As a former prosecutor, in my opinion, not only was intent shown but also a pattern of attempting to hide what was going on which goes directly to proving intent. Moreover, the Director has evidently inserted the word “willful” into the statute on his own volition.

    When the Director had to acknowledge that Hillary had lied and had lied before Congress, he ducked and said that that was none of the FBI’s business and it was up to Congress to make a referral on that subject. In other words, although the FBI clearly had evidence of a crime before it, it was not within their charge to act upon that information. It reminds me of the LIFELOCK commercials on TV where the fellow says, in the midst of a robbery that his job is not to do anything about it, he is “…only a security monitor”.

    The rabid liberals will scream that this has been all sound and fury and that despite all of her baggage she is a better choice than anything that the Republicans have to offer.

    As for me, my feeling today is one of sadness. am sad that although the FBI clearly found negligent handling of classified materials and acknowledged that the subject of theirf investigation had lied to the public and to Congress that there were no official sanctions to be levied, because, after all, she had not lied to the FBI. And of course, there is no recording or verbatim record of what the FBI asked her.

    I am sad because after today’s proceedings many in this nation must believe that laws mean nothing, that powerful political figures are above the law and that our premier law enforcement agency, through it’s director, engaged in an a farcical act of political expediency today,

    How reminiscent of the past when we were asked to debate what the meaning of is, is.

    Whether true or not, this morning, the FBI Director reinforced the perception held by many of the public that there are different strokes for different folks.

    For shame.

  50. Steve says:

    Bill, there are different strokes.

    Back when I was working for Kodak, I went through the BGC and got a county badge to enter all the courts via the employee doors and into all the records rooms.

    While wearing that badge, I was stopped on I215 by NHP for speeding. The cop got out of her car and, in full cop swagger, she marched up to my van. I had my paperwork ready and out the window.
    When she got abreast of the van, she saw the county badge. IT was just like a light switch was flipped on. Her demeanor changed immediately from one of swagger to one of friend as she asked about the unmarked van and mentioned the badge.
    She actually said to me “I didn’t realize you were one of us” and there was no ticket, only the comment that “we were all going too fast” and that I shouldn’t pass a cop when everyone is traveling over the limit.
    Truth is I didn’t see her, I was only traveling with the flow of traffic, she decided to pull me out of the crowd.

    But the fact is, I KNOW there is an “us VS them” attitude in government because I have EXPERIENCED it.

  51. Bill says:

    Of course there are. I have had some similar experiences for which I was grateful at he time. What saddens me is that this involved something more than a discretionary decision by a cop not to give a ticket. This involved the Secretary of State of the United States, a former U. S. Senator, a former resident of the White House and a trained lawyer who lied and subverted the law, jeopardized our national security, and destroyed evidence but will not be held accountable. Why? Because in Comey’s opinion there was insufficient evidence that she did it intentionally. That leaves only two possibilities: a, she did all of these things intentionally or (b) she was totally ignorant and incompetent. In the case of a she should be prosecuted and in the case of (b) shed should be denied any future security clearance and denied the privilege and responsibility of becoming the President of the United States.

  52. Steve says:

    No winning for Comey, he’s this decades Oli North.

    As for clearances, the state department is going to be removing a few of those form some key people. Any bets on one of those bearing the name Clinton?

    Never let it be said Clinton’s don’t leave living bodies in the wake of their path to power.

    Thing is, the levels are very different but the circumstance is the same, “us” vs “them” with “us” being the group of “public servants” and “them” being the dregs of society known as “citizens”

  53. Rincon says:

    I agree that Hillary’s use of a private Email account, while not necessarily a prosecutable offense, was either very arrogant or very dumb. Either way, it calls in question her qualifications to be leader of our country. Between her and Trump, I still have to pick her, but only because Trump is about half crazy. I also note though, that this group keeps hammering away at this and Benghazi, ad nauseum.

    That being said, I wonder if any of you condemned George Bush’s false presumption about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Can anyone find a critical word from that time? My tendency is to assume that this group gave him a pass, but I can’t be sure that I’m correct.

    From what I read, George W’s actions also qualify as perhaps not prosecutable, but certainly very arrogant or dumb. The difference is that Clinton’s impropriety had no lasting consequences, while George W.’s had horrendous ramifications. Seems to me that at the very least, the condemnation of his actions should have been equal to those of Clinton today.

    I’m sure I will be assaulted for bringing up old news. That would only affirm my impression of the immoderate partisanship here.

  54. Rincon says:

    “Indeed, the State Department has confirmed that none of the information that has surfaced on Clinton’s server thus far was classified at the time it was sent or received.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

    True or false?

  55. Steve says:

    “George Bush’s false presumption about weapons of mass destruction”

    ME! Never liked the idea of invading Iraq…partly because our target was in Afghanistan and partly because we had actually helped Saddam Hussain USE his chemical weapons (we sold him) against Iran. Remember? (We knew he had WMD’s, we just couldn’t own up to it)

    As for Trump vs Clinton…I say (again) vote for the alternative, trumpillary makes it the sane choice.

    Classified info on her server was real, if extremely limited.
    Politifact had to update their own read on it.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

  56. Steve says:

    Bill…(I know that’s not your name, you have been in the game and are a lawyer)
    After Dallas, do you maintain things are different because its a discretionary action by a cop (or two)?
    I hope not. Because things are getting very real now and it doesn’t matter what level they are at.

  57. Patrick says:

    It’s interesting that someone identifies the self as a “former prosecutor” but doesn’t acknowledge the prosecutorial discretion utilized in this case by the FBI Director. It’s also interesting, although for a real prosecutor not unheard of, to “judge” an accused as guilty without a decision from a jury.

    Whatever anyone can say about Hillary, they can’t say she’s been convicted of anything illegal, and you can’t say that Comey acted outside the prosecutorial discretion every prosecutor acts with every day.

    And of course Rincon, you are correct that the partisan zeal to get Hillary for her alleged actions was surely absent when the rules were violated by former conservatives. Which of course diminishes the credibility of their shrill cries today, in my opinion.

  58. Bill says:

    Comey is not a prosecutor. He couldn’t prosecute anybody for any thing. Comey has no prosecutorial discretion. Comey is a cop. Period. End of story.

    Comey’s job is to investigate and to turn the results of that investigation and any recommendations over to his superior. the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. He is not obligated by law to make recommendations but may do so.

    Loretta Lynch has the sole statutory duty to prosecute. She alone can exercise prosecutorial discretion.

    Lynch had been appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton prior to her taking the appointment as Attorney General. Lynch had been appointed AG by Barack Obama.

    Prior to the investigation being completed by the FBI, Loretta Lynch’s boss, Barack Obama had sent a powerful signal to both the FBI and Loretta Lynch when he publicly announced that Hillary Clinton might have made some mistakes but had done nothing criminal. That was prior to the completion of the FBI investigation. And if everyone is playing straight and honest, Obama did not know what theFBI’s evidence was and whether or not there would be a recommendation for prosecution. Nevertheless, prior to the completion of the FBI investigation, Obama endorsed Clinton as the Democrat Presidential nominee. A novel first had been engraved into he national history books. A sitting President endorsing the de facto nominee of his party while she was under FBI investigation. There might be another first here as well and that is a former Secretary of State being investigated for possible violation of federal law.

    In your partisan zeal, imagine for one moment the furor that you would have had and the frenzy of the media if the players had been a Republican President and a Republican Presidential candidate and a Republican appointed AG. There would be screams of outrage from every corner. And rightly so. But there has hardly been a word. How deafening is the silence.

    Doesn’t it smell just a little to you that the POTUS would conclude that there was no crime prior to the FBI’s report? And don’t forget, Comey did not say there was no crime or crimes. He merely said that he did not see “intent” to violate the law and that if it had been anyone else, there would be severe consequences.

    As stated above, it was not Comey who has discretion to prosecute. Only Loretta Lynch has that discretion although the ball (and the buck) were passed to Comey on that one. Through Machiavellian orchestration or mere happenstance. prior to the completion of the FBI’s investigation, Loretta Lynch engaged in a course of conduct that if not improper was by all reliable authorities conduct which gave the appearance of impropriety by having a nonscheduled secret meeting with Bill Clinton. She did so at a time when Clinton’s wife and possibly Clinton (because of the Clinton Foundation) was under investigation by the FBI,

    At this point, the FBI investigation was still ongoing and no results were publicly known, Nevertheless, President Barrack Obama stated Hillary had done no wrong and endorsed her as the Democrat candidate for President although she was still under FBI investigation. The President, unaware (we are told) of what the FBI report will say has scheduled a trip to North Carolina on Air Force One with her. A risky business if you don’t have some inside information on what the results of the investigation are going to be.

    Agin, Remember, Barack Obama appointed Loretta Lynch and is her boss and she in turn heads the Justice Department of which Director Comey and the FBI are part.

    Of course, we should make nothing of the signal sent by the President before the investigation was over.

    And of course we should have no suspicions about the secret meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and that the meeting was solely to discuss among old friends, Bill’s golf games and their grand children.

    And finally, we should view it as nothing but coincidence that the FBI Director held an unprecedented news conference two hours before Air Force One was to take off to announce that while Mrs. Clinton lied and had recklessly handled classified information, in his opinion it was not a winning case because there was not sufficient evidence that she violated the law intentionally. In order to achieve this result he had to assert a word that does not exist in the statute and that is the word “willfully”. While the Director’s parsing of words did not reach the art form achieved by Bill in his famous soliloquy of what the meaning of the word is, is, when it came to sexual relations with “that woman”, nonetheless it was artful until he was examined by Rep. Gowdy, another prosecutor who is familiar with such concepts as intent and proof and prosecutorial discretion.

    But, while I am taking he time to write this, there is no real point in even bringing these facts up if all that you can see is that the partisan Republicans are causing a lot of money to be spent and that Mrs. Clinton is totally innocent.

    If you truly believe violating the law regarding classified material, endangering national security and lying to the American public and to Congress is O.K. with you then there is nothing that can pierce that ideological armor and virtually nothing that can be said that will change your belief.

    Reasonable people can disagree. Partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to basic loyalties but turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to wrongdoing is a sure way to destroy a democratic Republic which depends upon truth and honesty for survival.

  59. Bill says:

    No insults. Just a brief nudge to check your history. Weapons of mass destruction were widely believed by many in the international community to be in Saddam’s arsenal and in fact there had been gassing of the Kurds by Saddam. When Bush acted he did so with a coalition of forces and with Congressional approval. Bill Clinton had denounced Saddam and if my memory is correct he said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction., Bush acted under authority given to him by Congress. Let’s see….how did Hillary vote? Was Iraq a mistake?ke. Maybe, especially in hind sight. We have strong reason to believe that things might have been a bit better if Obama had left the forces in there that were recommended by his generals. The surge ordered by Bush had succeeded. But Obama withdrew and so we will never know. Nature abhors a vacumn and when our forces were withdrawn ISIS filled the vacumn.
    But, Iraq is not the subject at hand and if you want to bring up old history, I was part of a little skirmish that was started by JFK circa 1962 (I was there) and escalated by LBJ under a pretext called the Gulf of Tonkin. We lost far more in that one than in Iraq. Militarily we won that one too but politically lost it. Was that one wrong. Hell yes. Was Nam a dumber war? In my estimation yes. While the parallels to the middle east are similar in that both wars involved European powers drawing artificial national lines on maps, at least in the case of the Iraq we had a case wshere a vicious dictator who had gassed his own people, invaded other countries and threatened oil supplies and cdommerce lines in the middle east posed a concern to the worlds interests and ours. . Arguably, at least in Iraq we had some national security interest. In Viet Nam we had none.

  60. nyp says:

    The neocons wanted a war in the worst possible way, and that is exactly what they got.

  61. nyp says:

    June jobs report: another 287,00 jobs added to the American economy. Unemployment below 5%. Hourly wages up 2.6%.

    I blame that job-killing ObamaCare.

  62. Rincon says:

    Valuable information Steve. The bottom line from your link: “It’s important to remember that only “a very small number” of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

    Hillary should not have used the private Email server, but convicting her on the basis of 2 out of 30,000 documents demands a 99.999″ accuracy rate. Pretty tough standard.

  63. Gulf of Tonkin, weapons of mass destruction. Fair comparison.

  64. Steve says:

    Rincon, as Bill points out, Comey is not the prosecutor. A conviction cannot come unless a charge is filed and the case goes to court.
    But, as things stand, all that occurred is now buried under the cloak provided by the “most transparent administration ever”.
    For a sitting president to announce the innocence of someone under (at the time) current investigation by a police agency (FBI) is far more than suggestion, it is a blatant order that the investigation find innocence.

  65. Patrick says:

    Bill:

    Let me say that IF Hillary violated the law, she ought to be prosecuted to the FULL extent of the law. (I thought I said this already but it’s worth repeating)

    Let me also agree that Comey is not a prosecutor and my erroneous statement that he had some “prosecutorial” discretion was clearly mistaken.

    Having said that, and since you brought it up, your partisan zeal is obvious.

    For 8 long years, the Bush administration engaged in some of the most Constitutionally destructive acts our republic has ever endured. From Bush’s AWOL, to Bush’s “election” to the “Supreme Courts” decision in Bush v Gore, to Bushs illegal, unconstitutional unilateral disavowal of the ABM Treaty this country has signed and approved, to Cheneys initial secret Energy Task Force meetings, to Cheneys “investments” in Halliburton which was conducting business with our “enemy” Iran through a Halliburton subsidiary based outside the US, to Bush’s attempt to block the 911 Inquiry, to Bush’s LIES about the “16 words”, to Bush’s efforts to conduct an illegal surveillance program that included sending his chief of staff to a hospital to get a near comatose Attorney General to re authorize the program and was stopped in a Keystone cop fashion, to the authorization of a torture program that was conducted on violation of Federal Law, to the illegal ouster of a CIA agent to the illegal murder of American citizens nconstitutionally identified as “enemy combatants” to the intentional instigation of war, through illegal, unconstitutional military means with Iran, NEVER was there a cry from the Republican Party as loud (and I’m being as non partisan here as I can because, truth be told, there was ZERO cry that I recall from the republicans) that these actions called for the kind of investigation that the Republican Party has insisted be engaged to determine issues of Hillary’s guilt or innocence.

    What I do know, is that, at least, investigations at the highest level HAVE BEEN instituted to deal with the actions of the former Secretary of State, even while those action absolutely PALE in comparison with the degree of Constitutionally damaging actions visited on this country by the Bush Administration.

    Where were the HOWLS of protest THEN that are coming out of the Republican Party today I ask? When the most significant terrorist attack in the history of this country happen how DARE the Bush administration work to DENY a full and fair investigation. Where were the honest voices in the Republican Party THEN I ask? Did the fact that the Bush Administration was republican mean that their actions weren’t subverting our beautiful Constitutional Republic?

    If I may say so Bill, in my opinion, you did what I’ve seen republicans do since abush was in office; you rationalized, you diminished, and you excused all those actions and then, to top it all off, you even tried to heap blame on a Democratic President who followed Bush while NEVER either assigned any fault to him, or made any citation of how it was that he deserved to be indicted, impeached, or heck even investigated.

    Now I know most of this doesn’t directly relate to Hillary, but since I addressed what I see as “the big issue” regarding her above, and since you raised issues about Bush that I have spent lots of time mulling over, I thought I’d throw them in.

  66. nyp says:

    Today’s Second Amendment moment:

  67. nyp says:

    He had an SKS assault rifle, of course.

  68. Rincon says:

    The answer appears to be that Conservatives today continue to defend what they see as the legitimacy of Bush’s decision regarding weapons of mass destruction, in addition perhaps, to the many other controversial decisions outlined by Patrick, that were made by him and his administration.

    So far as I can tell, Bush’s opinion about WSDs was directly counter to that of the UN weapons inspectors: “In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction The buildup for the war began in the spring of 2003. To my knowledge, the Bush administration presented no solid evidence to the contrary.

  69. Bill says:

    Forgive my denseness but I don’t understand the question.

  70. Bill says:

    Steve, your response to Rincon was right on point. To cite an example, Imagine a Mayor of a City who had appointed a police chief. Imagine that Mayor making a public announcement and expressing support for a suspect under investigation by that City’s police department headed by the person the Mayor had appointed. Would that be proper? Would that pass even a minimal smell test? Most people would say the answer to both questions would be no and an emphatic no! to the second question.

    Any person that feels that such conduct would be proper and does not reek of outcome direction then, IMHO, that person has a peculiar view on wrongdoing and cares not a whit about improprieties in the administration of the law and condones even the appearance of impropriety on the part of those who enforce our laws.

    There are times I fear for our Republic.

  71. Patrick says:

    I fear for our Republic. More.

    “Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush called Dick Cheney “a fine business leader” Wednesday and said he was confident an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into Cheney’s former company’s accounting practices would exonerate the vice president.”

    http://www.semissourian.com/story/81673.html

  72. Patrick says:

    I fear for the Republic more, and more.

    ““I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the seniormost aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,” McClellan wrote.

    “There was one problem. It was not true…”

    “I had unknowingly passed along false information,” McClellan wrote.

    “And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff and the president.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2007/11/mcclellan-points-finger-at-bush-rove-006994

  73. Bill says:

    Well done Patrick. You have made a great attempt at shifting the conversation from the present transgressions of Hillary and the questionable activities surrounding those transgressions by launching an attack based on a litany of events that happened years ago. If your aim is to correct the history books go right ahead but frankly, I don’t have either the time or the inclination to listen and fail to see, other than as a diversionary effort, what your litany of accusations has to do with the current situation.

    Let us pause for a moment. The discussion started by Tom’s post concerning Comey and his investigation of Hillary. There are real questions that surround this matter. I rather suspect that we have not heard the last of this nor that Hillary’s legal problems stemming from these events are over.

    In response to some postings on that event, you have launched a diatribe of accusations of past events that are long past. It can be no defense of present bad conduct of mishandling of classified materials, lying to the American Public and Congress to recite a litany of past real and imagined evils of Dick Cheney, the Bushes, Republicans et. al. as any justification or defense of Hillary’s actions. She was either guilty of criminality or incompetence. That is not partisan, simply fact.

    As to another post on “job creation” it would be wonderful if those were good well paying jobs just as it would be good if our durable goods orders were up, our trade deficit down and the crippling national debt were reduced.

    As for me, right now I am going to have dinner, a glass of wine or two and I heartily recommend it as a temporary antidote to feelings of angst.

  74. Rincon says:

    The question was whether anyone here criticized Bush about the utter weakness of his excuse for initiating the Iraq War. It has been answered.

    As for Hillary, she used a private server for her Email instead of the State Department server and she used it to send 2 classified Emails. Oh, and she claimed that her 30,000 Emails were all unclassified, while it was actually only 29,998. Can we move on now?

  75. Steve says:

    Yup, that’s Patrick for you.
    Catch him false statements and/or redirects/attacks and he simply ups the ante.

    This is yet another case of Patrick having nothing to defend his candidate or political topic du jour, so he tries to change the subject while attempting to make his words seem superior to everyone elses.

  76. Steve says:

    Again, Rincon, ME ME ME! I never liked the invasion of Iraq and always thought we should have been going after our target who was located in Afghanistan at the time.

    As for the WMD’s the timeline is very tight, but WE DID help him use his chemical weapons on Iran and it was only about 2 years prior to the invasion that the CIA did a buy program to get ahold of all the old chemical weapons Saddam still had stashed away. Luckily the CIA was largely successful in that effort.

  77. Patrick says:

    Maybe there is more than one “Bill” posting here, but the “Bill” who posted on July 8, 2016, at 1:50 am, addressed the actions of no fewer than 3 Democratic administrations, and taking issue with all of them, along with the actions of the Bush administration which were cast in an apologetic (at best) fashion.

    My most recent post addressed some of the points made in that post, as well as some made by a “Bill” in a later post on July 8, 2016 at 2:08 pm where that poster made an analogy to an investigation by a local government and a statement made during the course of that investigation regarding the subject of the investigation being innocent of wrongdoing, and drawing a conclusion that this would not pass a “smell test” for propriety:

    “Imagine that Mayor making a public announcement and expressing support for a suspect under investigation by that City’s police department headed by the person the Mayor had appointed. Would that be proper? Would that pass even a minimal smell test? Most people would say the answer to both questions would be no and an emphatic no! to the second question”

    My most recent posts, pointed out that the Bush administration was guilty of doing that which “Bill” suggested was inappropriate (albeit when the analogy was pointedly directed at the presidents recent conduct) but strangely silent with regard to whether it was equally wrong when Bush did it.

    In all posts made by “Bill” here, and in spite of the fact that the poster called for some “non-partisanship” in the analysis of the wrongfulness of the actions, and further on spite of the fact that “Bill” address alleged wrongdoing by various Democratic administrations while excusing or even applauding controversial actions by the Bush administration, “Bill” has demonstrated a clear tendency toward partisanship and at times, incomprehensibly so in light of clear examples where his own analogy ought to prompt an objective observer to acknowledge the wrongfulness of the deed.

    I have to conclude that, like most people, admitting (as I did) that a presumed candidate that I might be partial too made mistakes, will not alter the partisan way in which “Bill” will respond.

    Too bad.

  78. Steve says:

    Ante,

    upped.

    and wordy to boot.

  79. Patrick says:

    For some perspective on the differences in partisanship between the democrats and the republicans, when the Bush administration was caught using private servers (in violation of several federal laws) to send and receive emails regarding public functions, there was no FBI investigation, there were however constant roadblocks put in place by the administration to forstall an investigation, and in spite of the fact that there were MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of emails that were “lost” and that related to matters of critical national security, the results were swept, almost immediately, under the republican rug. No outrage about the “loss of our republic” no crocodile tears about our “beloved Constitution” no nothing about “transparency” just ho hum, the republicans are above the law now move on. Let’s talk about candidate Obamas birth certificate.

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

  80. Steve says:

    salon………partisan for the partisan

  81. Bill says:

    Thanks for that explanation Rincon. It demonstrates the futility of rational discussion about a serious current event.

    Let me understand this. This whole discussion has been about partisanship. Republicans and/or conservatives have been guilty of horrendous things and that is somehow relevant to the question of Mrs. Clinton, FBI Diector Comey and AG Loretta Lynch’s conduct?

    That is reminiscent of a school yard argument between 3rd graders. I can still hear the argument, “So’s your old man”.

    I guess the argument is that whatever Mrs. Clinton did or failed to do is not even relevant because some time in the past Republicans did something bad.

    It seems that there is little point in even having a discussion with people who hold that view.

    However, if we conduct a discussion about past rather than current events we might develop the subject of our entry into the Viet Nam War and the lies of Lyndon Johnson that led escalated it for us. Or, since it has always fascinated me, we can start a discussion into whether or not it was a good idea for Democrat Woodrow Wilson to get us into World War I. That war cost the United States over 116,00 dead and 200,000 wounded. As I recall my history, the spark that set it off was the assassination of some obscure Archduke in the Balkans.

    However, since I like to be fair, we might also discuss whether Republican Warren G. Harding was responsible for the Teapot Dome scandal.

  82. Patrick says:

    I fear for our republic. Today. Based only on what’s happened in, and we don’t want to go too far back, so let’s just say, last week? No, that probably too current. Let’s say, last month. Course, to some people that just not far back enough to raise up enough fear. So let’s go back 6 months or, alright, a year. Now THAT is surely enough time to completely understand how far the country has fallen so that an honest “fear for our beloved republic” may be formulated. Good, now that we have that cleared up, we don’t have to worry about anything that has happened in this country that could have contributed to any fear that our beloved republic is in danger for, as we all know, no rational person could have feared for this glorious republic before then due to anything that happened at any time before then.

    So, the only reason we have anything to fear, as far as this beloved, glorious republic of ours is concerned, is anything that happened in the last year. Whew.

    My mind is now at rest that anything that happened more than one year ago, like say Bush ramming through the Patriot Act, or signing the Military Commissions Act which suspended the right of habeas corpus, or say Bush declaring that even American citizens, upon his say alone, with no entitlement to judicial review of any kind, are subject to being identified as enemy combatants which designation would permit Bush to kill an American citizen without Due Process as guaranteed by the Constitution.

    My mind is now at rest knowing that these, and other actions by republican administrations, should instill no fear in me, or anyone else for that matter, that our cherished republic is in danger.

    A question though: in another year, will anything that has happened prior to today be cause for rational people to wonder how safe our republic is or is the “new” year statute of limitations subject to change?

  83. Rincon says:

    “Again, Rincon, ME ME ME! I never liked the invasion of Iraq and always thought we should have been going after our target who was located in Afghanistan at the time.”

    Point well taken, Steve. You are not one to blindly follow a set of chosen heroes.

    “Republicans and/or conservatives have been guilty of horrendous things and that is somehow relevant to the question of Mrs. Clinton, FBI Diector Comey and AG Loretta Lynch’s conduct?”

    To quote me: ” I agree that Hillary’s use of a private Email account, while not necessarily a prosecutable offense, was either very arrogant or very dumb. Either way, it calls in question her qualifications to be leader of our country.” My complaint about Conservatives giving Bush a pass for something more egregious was not a defense of Clinton. I was pointing out a double standard, which is a separate, though related issue. Your criticisms of Clinton are essentially valid, though, in my opinion, overstated.

  84. Steve says:

    Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — Until Hillary Clinton

    Secrecy is a virtual religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive manner — at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been widely noted, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.

    People who leak to media outlets for the selfless purpose of informing the public — Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Drake, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden — face decades in prison. Those who leak for more ignoble and self-serving ends — such as enabling hagiography (Leon Panetta, David Petraeus) or ingratiating oneself to one’s mistress (Petraeus) — face career destruction, though they are usually spared if they are sufficiently Important-in-D.C. For low-level, powerless Nobodies-in-D.C., even the mere mishandling of classified information — without any intent to leak but merely to, say, work from home — has resulted in criminal prosecution, career destruction, and the permanent loss of security clearance.

    …………

    The Obama-appointed FBI director gave a press conference showing that she recklessly handled top-secret information, engaged in conduct prohibited by law, and lied about it repeatedly to the public. But she won’t be prosecuted or imprisoned for any of that, so Democrats are celebrating. But if there is to be anything positive that can come from this lowly affair, perhaps Democrats might start demanding the same reasonable leniency and prosecutorial restraint for everyone else who isn’t Hillary Clinton.

    Glenn Greenwald https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/

    Read the rest:
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

  85. Patrick says:

    “My complaint about Conservatives giving Bush a pass for something more egregious was not a defense of Clinton. I was pointing out a double standard, which is a separate, though related issue.”

    Well said Rincon!

  86. Bill says:

    Good article. Than ks for posting it Steve. Different strokes for different strokes.

  87. Rincon says:

    Unintentionally (presumably) sending out 2 classified Emails out of 30,000 where someone MIGHT HAVE hacked them is a far cry from intentionally putting a very big monkey wrench in our foreign policy by violating our laws for noble reasons. Timothy McVeigh acted for noble reasons as well. Should he not have been prosecuted? That being said, the comparison with McVeigh is obviously hyperbolic. There is legitimate controversy regarding Snowden and the others as there should be.

    We are a nation of laws. If broken, then punishment should follow. Patrick and I have said so regarding Hillary. Claiming that the process is fixed,should require a great deal of evidence.to be believed. The presumption of innocence for Hillary appears to be no greater than that shown for Bush, Reagan and Bill Clinton, among others. The same could be said of the Republican Party refusing to consider a Supreme Court nominee purely for the purpose of advancing their own political power.

    If Hillary was going to be convicted of anything, it should have been accomplished before the time that doing so would essentially fix the upcoming election for the Republican Party. The Constitution does give us the right to a speedy trial, although it is routinely ignored, just as you advocate it should be now.

  88. Steve says:

    Rincon, you are the only one mentioning McVeigh.

    Current Senate leadership is within the law in their actions regarding hearings, eve Reid has said so.

    Before a trial can be demanded, speedy or not, charges need to be filed. This has not happened, nor will. Hillary is “special” she has money and power. The Clintons have gotten away with the same things they di back in the nineties and the same things the bushes got away with and every other previous administration up to and including Nixon (who resigned before being charged)

    As the article I posted concluded, you liberal types have the opportunity to stand up for what you have been trumpeting to be your beliefs, “perhaps Democrats might start demanding the same reasonable leniency and prosecutorial restraint for everyone else who isn’t Hillary Clinton” or in the same category as her.

    I hope you people are really honest in your intents, not just another bunch of whiners, crying over stuff while claiming
    “you do it too!”

  89. Bill says:

    Steve, your recent comment that ” I hope you people are really honest in your intents, not just another bunch of whiners, crying over stuff while claiming “you do it too!” was a pretty good jab. Hillary set up her own server in violation of the law and jeopardized security. That is the result of the investigation. Comey acknowledge possible violations of the law but recommended no prosecution. The AG said no prosecution. The facts are the facts. All else is akin to MacBeth, Act 5, Scene 5. (Forgive the display of what I learned in 12th grade english class).

  90. Note the phrase gross negligence:

    18 U.S. Code § 793

    (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

  91. Patrick says:

    When it comes to the Clintons, the republicans are like the boy who cried wolf. Even though, on their best day, that know it’s, at best, a chihuahua.

    And Thomas, where does the First Amendment come into play here? I mean, pretend for a moment that everything republicans claim actually happened, are the laws that make these disclosures violative of the right to freedom of speech? If not, why not?

  92. Steve says:

    Negligence is directly related to the power obtained by allowing it.

  93. Patrick says:

    “The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting …”

    Thought I’d post it here to remind us all about the things those Constitutional loving republicans are claiming Hillary did wrong, backdropped against the words of the Constitution.

  94. Steve says:

    Nothing took her freedom to speak away….only the channels with which she was supposed to use while speaking about classified material.

    To this day I don’t discuss the frequencies used on the F-15 communications and radar systems…but that doesn’t prevent me from publicly stating the fact that they exist.

  95. Bill says:

    Thanks forf citing the statute. And, there are others possible.

    Even to the naysayers it should be clear that nwhere doe the statute say anything about “intent” or use the term “willful”.

    Can’t you just hear a thousand defendants in a thousand cases across the land when charged with such things as negligent homicide, citing the (defense of “I didn’t mean to (fill in the blank).

    That might be mitigation but is not a defense.

  96. Rincon says:

    Is there any reason the Republican controlled Congress cannot charge the AG with dereliction of duty?

    Your thoughts are well taken Steve. Thank you for including conservatives along with the liberals. The justice system has always favored the wealthy, at the very least because they can afford the best legal representation. As an example, I have a friend in Las Vegas who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, not because he was guilty (he definitely was not), but because he could not afford the $60-80,000 legal bill if it went to trial. Had he been rich, I doubt that he would have been charged. The prosecutor had no chance of conviction, unless of course, the judge was not interested in serving justice impartially.

    This may or may not be a partial explanation for some of the rich and powerful getting off. I suspect that charging a famous person and failing to convict them doesn’t help one’s career. If O.J. can get off, anyone can.

  97. Steve says:

    Your friend actually had charges filed against him.
    He should have plead not guilty and demanded his public defender.
    Then he should have done a whole bunch of his own research on his own case.

    I have done so on smaller cases, none requiring council, and each one I came away unscathed.
    I have the paperwork to prove it.
    In one instance, there is no such thing as a “reverse pace” it was neat seeing the empty prosecutors table.
    In another, parking on residential streets in a particular direction requires both sides of the street to have curbs….my street has a valley gutter on one side.
    Admittedly small cases, but both come with elevated consequences when pleading not guilty, if you don’t prove your case it can rise from misdemeanor to felony status.

  98. Bill says:

    Just out of curiosity….what does the First Amendment have to do with Hillary’s current crises? She negligently handled classified material. She lied to Congress. What or where is there a freedom of speech or any other 1st amendment right. Just curious to see an explanation.

  99. Bill says:

    The wealthy can hire better lawyers. They also tend to be better educated. Like too many other times the middle class get squeezed. If you are totally indigent you can get a public defender, who although often bright, capable and dedicated are overworked and burdened with an almost insurmountable case load while meantime the State has a vast arsenal of virtually unlimited resources to draw upon. The rich on the other hand can hire expensive, well educated and well connected lawyers who have no other concern other than the defense of their client. Meantime, the guy who often gets screwed is the guy who isn’t rich but has enough to disqualify him/her from getting a pubic defender. Kind of like the rest of what government does. So the lesson is to try and be very rich or very poor. Different strokes for different folks. By the way. I am unclear as to whether Hillary Clinton is poor. Didn’t she say that when they left the White House they were broke?

  100. Steve says:

    I would guess the 1st amendment argument involves not being allowed to use the “soapbox” of her choice for communicating with others at work.

    Her net worth is estimated to be over $30,000,000

    http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/

  101. Bill says:

    Surely Steve, that cannot be the answer. If that is the answer, I repeat, it reminds me of MacBeth, Act 5, Scene 5.

    Thanks for the estimate of Hillary;s worth. I guess she was only kidding when she said that she and Bill were broke.

    Gee, how did she acquire all that wealth? I recall many years ago she worked for the Rose Law Firm but don’t know of any other employment that she had except as a Senator and Secretary of State.

    Is that 30 million just her estimated worth or does it include Bill too. I know that Bill has been in public office most of his adult life.

    It always makes me proud of how people who hold elected offices on rather modest salaries can accumulate wealth. I know Harry Reid did it by frugality and thrift but didn’t know Bill and Hillary practiced careful money management too.

    Hasn’t Bill been in public office for most of his adult life? I know that Hillary made an astounding investment in cattle futures but that was many years ago. Will wonders never cease.

    Where did I get this idea that pubic office was a public trust? Evidently some of our lawmakers and some of their adherents don’t believe in that rather quaint belief.

  102. Rincon says:

    Not sure if my friend could qualify for a public defender. He could have remortgaged the house, but that would have torpedoed his retirement. Also not so sure of the quality of a public defender. Rumor is they’re usually stretched thin and that they cannot focus well on any particular case. A complicating factor is that a felony conviction would have thrown his wife out of her job. Once again, who’s going to trust that the judge will be fair and impartial, especially when he knows the prosecutor well? Unfortunately, the prosecutor can never be sued for the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit. The felony would have required malice. Absolutely no way in hell to prove it. The felony was purely a bullying tactic and it did its job.

  103. Steve says:

    What happened to your friend is very similar to what happens to Ranchers in the west.

  104. Steve says:

    This new poll shows that even a lot of Democrats worry about Clinton’s emails

    A new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that a majority of Americans disapprove of FBI director James Comey’s recommendation that Clinton not be charged with a crime over her email arrangement, by 56-35. Americans say by 57-39 that her handling of it makes them worry about how she’ll handle the presidency.

    What’s striking, though, is the degree to which this is driven by differences between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are nearly unanimous in their disapproval of Comey’s decision, by 88 to seven. But according to the crosstabs, Democrats are substantially more split: 31 percent of Dems also disapprove, versus 63 percent who approve. Similarly, Dems say by 31-68 makes them worried about her presidency. Among independents, those numbers are 59-31 and 63-34.

    In other words, nearly a third of Democrats disapprove of Comey’s recommendation against charges and say it makes them worried about her presidency, and a whole lot of Dem-leaning independents say the same.

    Go ahead and yawn, Nyp. But I suggest you read the rest:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/07/11/this-new-poll-shows-that-even-a-lot-of-dems-worry-about-hillarys-emails/

  105. Bill says:

    It is a hopeful sign that increasingly voters are considering such qualities as integrity. If you violate the rules and lie you demonstrate a lack of integrity. Public office is a trust and politicians should demonstrate that they deserve the public trust. That is not a partisan issue.

  106. Patrick says:

    The Brits clearly did it better than the US. If the country had it’s head screwed on right, Bush would be in the headlines today instead of whoever the partisan target of the day is.

    https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/07/the-chilcot-report-proves-tony-blair-is-a-liar-but.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s