When is the court date for Hillary?

[texas_ex2000]

Why have the hearing if Trey Gowdy simply wanted to use the platform to give his own speech? He could have done that without wasting Comey's time. I hate when politicians use hearings as a platform to give speeches. The only people that want to hear Gowdy speak at this point are the JoeFan's. Comey was and should be challenged.

SH,

(In fairness, Gowdy did ask him some questions in the beginning.)

I'm pretty sure that (giving a speech) was Gowdy being nice to Comey. Hillary is getting off, for this at least, and nothing will change that. Gowdy knows that. Doubling down on the confrontation won't help and will hurt 2x in return.

Still, Gowdy had to put out something on record.

 

[Crockett]

Mr. Deez, I'm not reading legal journals, but what I gathered from the remarks is the prosecutable issue regarding "intent" is whether she knowingly exposed classified information. I'm not defending Hillary any more than Comey is for setting up a private server ... I've said from the start that was wrong. However, she did take steps to safeguard state secrets.

Using private servers in the executive branch and even as secretary of state is hardly unprecedented and erasures during investigations have been more extensive in the past. http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/0...t-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

 

[Joe Fan]

Why have the hearing if Trey Gowdy simply wanted to use the platform to give his own speech? ....

First time to ever watch a Congressional hearing?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr. Deez, I'm not reading legal journals, but what I gathered from the remarks is the prosecutable issue regarding "intent" is whether she knowingly exposed classified information.

That isn't what Comey said, and it isn't what Think Progress said. Both said something very different.

 

[WorsterMan]

Why have the hearing if Trey Gowdy simply wanted to use the platform to give his own speech? He could have done that without wasting Comey's time. I hate when politicians use hearings as a platform to give speeches. The only people that want to hear Gowdy speak at this point are the JoeFan's. Comey was and should be challenged.

SH - It was a Congressional Hearing.

Certainly not the first time a politician commented during a hearing and I agree with a previous poster he could have been far tougher on Comey but he largely held back.

I suspect you are just uncomfortable / don't like a conservative former prosecutorial lawyer dissecting / responding to Comey's / the FBI report to Congress or him identifying the underlying and frequent lying about mishandling classified materials by the former Sec. of State Clinton.

 

[Crockett]

That isn't what Comey said, and it isn't what Think Progress said. Both said something very different.

This is precisely what Comey said.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

I should have linked the source document immediatey, since it was more concise, informative and less biased that all the "reports" on what Comey reported. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

[Mr. Deez]

clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information

This is the key language, Crock. Comey and Think Progress are talking about this as though it requires one to be intentionally breaking the law. It doesn't. The conduct (using the unsecured private server) is what needs to intentional, and it clearly was.

Nevertheless, let me humor you for a minute and presume the law requires intentionally breaking the law. If HRC didn't know she was breaking the law, then why lie about what she was doing?

 

[theiioftx]

I always enjoy hearing the analysis from HF lawyers. I think Comey and the Jistice Department were looking for any reason to let her go. Comey was especially uncomfortable answering Gowdy and Chaffetz. I do not think it was a bribe, but I do think the potential consequences of prosecuting a former FL, Senator and presumptive Dem nominee was a factor.

Seems like every crime would be hard to prosecute if you had to prove both intent and guilt.

 

[NJlonghorn]

This is the key language, Crock. Comey and Think Progress are talking about this as though it requires one to be intentionally breaking the law. It doesn't. The conduct (using the unsecured private server) is what needs to intentional, and it clearly was.

I don't think that's what he said. He said that prosecutors have historically declined to prosecute in the absence of intent or other aggravating factors, and that none of those factors are present in this case.

It's kinda like going 60 in a 55. It violates the speeding statute, but almost all DAs would decline to prosecute.

NOTE -- I'm not saying I agree with Comey -- I'm just interpreting what I heard him say.

 

[Crockett]

If HRC didn't know she was breaking the law, then why lie about what she was doing?

Why do birds keep on singing? Why do seas rush to shore?

Given the right circumstances, anybody would lie. For some, it would be to save a life, avoiding hurting someone's feelings, as an easy out of an uncomfortable situation. For many, its simple expediency and Clinton, like a lot of successful leaders and politicians, has a pretty low threshold ... though not as low as her main rival for the White House.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Why do birds keep on singing? Why do seas rush to shore?

Wrong on everything Crockett. Birds and The Sea aren't capable of lying. Nature is innocent. That is why it's beautiful and we're drawn to it.

For many, its simple expediency and Clinton, like a lot of successful leaders and politicians, has a pretty low threshold ... though not as low as her main rival for the White House.

Clinton is an example of a "successful leader" and "successful politician?"

And I don't know if you've ever had a clearance or served our country, but the vast majority of us that had have high personal conduct thresholds. Oaths are still important in the service and you go to jail and literally dishonor yourself for breaking them. Fewer men and women today take oaths to support and defend our country and the Constitution today (or oaths of any kind for that matter). It's rare and hence special and especially accretive to one's character in comparison to those who talk a lot but have passed on committing themselves.

In the civilian world, meh...what are oaths? I mean, I got more important things to do. And everyone lies! Who cares about honor? That's stuff old white guys talk about. It's probably racist.

 

[Monahorns]

The policy that HRC broke was for gross negligence to for intent to hurt the country. Those are 2 separate laws. Comey mixed them together in order to excuse HRC from prosecution. He twisted the law to make the narrative that those in power wanted to come true. It is injustice and lawlessness. My confidence in the integrity of the country is quickly waning.

 

[Crockett]

Clinton is an example of a "successful leader" and "successful politician?"

Well she's hardly on my list of 100 most admired leaders of the 21st century. But she is the presumptive nominee for president for one of two powerful political parties in the US. She was elected to and served in the US Senate, sold a lot of books and been caricatured on Saturday Night Live.

Personally, I've had a Securities License, but never a Security Clearance. I can confidently say I have never handled nor mishandled state secrets. And it's unfair, but hardly unprecedented that the secretary of state can get away with some crap that a master sergeant can't.

 

[texas_ex2000]

And it's unfair, but hardly unprecedented that the secretary of state can get away with some crap that a master sergeant can't.

With rank comes privilege. A Colonel, like a Secretary of State, will have more leeway in how to run their unit. But a Colonel that commits a crime, such as using a private server at home to conduct official TOP SECRET business, and then lies about it will be court martialed.

And when officers get court martialed for violating the UCMJ, far less than enlisted - partly because of prosecutorial perogative but mostly because officers are more mature and just don't do the stupid stuff enlisted folks get into, they get the book thrown at them.

The "Secretary of State" can do stuff (e.g. private server with TS/SCI/SAP material) a lowly analyst can't is bull. Now it might be a dangerously circular/self-fufilling statement thanks to Comey and Lynch declining to indite.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why do birds keep on singing? Why do seas rush to shore?

Given the right circumstances, anybody would lie. For some, it would be to save a life, avoiding hurting someone's feelings, as an easy out of an uncomfortable situation. For many, its simple expediency and Clinton, like a lot of successful leaders and politicians, has a pretty low threshold ... though not as low as her main rival for the White House.

When you dismiss her lies as something every politician would do (which isn't true, by the way), you indirectly tolerate the lies. I'll ask the same question I asked before. Why should a Democratic politician ever tell you the truth? It holds no value to you.

And I'm not suggesting that you go vote for Donald Trump. In fact, I've probably ripped him more than I've ripped her. However, I am suggesting that you shouldn't endorse her with your vote or offer her a defense. His crappiness doesn't make her any better, just as her crappiness doesn't make him any better.

 

[Crockett]

Mr. Deez: I hardly offer praise or defense for Hillary ... I just said that she has a low threshold for lying, which is hardly a compliment. Comparing Hillary to Trump, she's like fresh Vienna sausages vs. week old potted meat in a malfunctioning refrigerator. I haven't eaten Vienna sausages in more than 45 years and they are not on my shopping list. I'd prefer to go hungry than eat them ... though given a starvation situation I could hold my nose.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think that's what he said. He said that prosecutors have historically declined to prosecute in the absence of intent or other aggravating factors, and that none of those factors are present in this case.

It's kinda like going 60 in a 55. It violates the speeding statute, but almost all DAs would decline to prosecute.

NOTE -- I'm not saying I agree with Comey -- I'm just interpreting what I heard him say.

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws . . ." This is the phrase that bugs me. It was the first reference he made to Clinton's intent and set the parameter for his discussion of intent. It tainted the way I viewed his entire analysis of the intent issue. What statute requires proof of intent to violate the law rather than intent to engage in the conduct at issue?

Nevertheless, let's presume that it was just a poor choice of words and set aside that statement. What is the argument that she didn't intend what she did? I haven't seen anybody even hypothetically explain that. Comey certainly didn't. She knew she had the private server. She knew she sent and received classified documents from them. Nevertheless, she lied about every facet of the e-mail operation. I'm not a Trey Gowdy disciple. In fact, I think he's somewhat of a self-promoting tool, but his question to Comey about false exculpatory statements (her lies) and his answer were pretty revealing. Crockett may not care about them, but those statements are evidence of intent and consciousness of guilt. DoJ could bring this case if it wanted to.

And respectfully, I don't think the speeding analogy is very applicable. The police and prosecutors are unlikely to charge you for going 60 in a 55, not because of intent (After all, speeding is a strict liability offense, so intent doesn't matter.) but because it's not a wise use of judicial and law enforcement resources and because they don't want to look like nitpicky jackasses. If someone is going 60 in a 55, they're not endangering the public, but it costs just as much in time and resources to prosecute someone driving 120 in a 55. It's not worth it, especially when they're likely to get eye rolls and groans from the judge and the jury if the person decides to fight it. HRC's case involves a much more flagrant violation of the law with much higher stakes.

I should clarify a few things. First, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. You're not defending Comey's position, and I respect that you think for yourself on this, as you do on everything. Second, I'm not a Comey hater and don't blame him for this. My honest view is that he probably isn't recommending prosecution mostly because he doesn't want to disrupt the presidential election and be the center of controversy. I get that. Furthermore, I don't think this burden should be on him. DoJ makes the call to prosecute, not him, and only a naive fool would think that politics aren't entering the equation. That's why a special prosecutor should have been appointed.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Second, I'm not a Comey hater and don't blame him for this. My honest view is that he probably isn't recommending prosecution mostly because he doesn't want to disrupt the presidential election and be the center of controversy. I get that. Furthermore, I don't think this burden should be on him. DoJ makes the call to prosecute, not him, and only a naive fool would think that politics aren't entering the equation. That's why a special prosecutor should have been appointed.

I think this is what happened also. Hard and not fair to rake Comey over the coals for this. Your boss' boss who nominated you for FBI Director endorsed Hillary for his job and is flying around on Air Force ONE with her. Special prosecutor is right.

 

[mchammer]

The conspiracy theorists on the Internet think the real action is the Clinton Foundation (pay for favors), and a lot more people than just Hillary are implicated. So, Comey didn't want to open a can of worms. However, people think that both Trump and Putin have hacked e-mails which would make Hillary look bad. If Trump is elected, it is likely Hillary goes to jail regarding the Clinton Foundation. Finally, Bill likely dead within a year. Anyways, all the news not fit to print.

 

[iatrogenic]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer070816.php3

"I would suggest that Comey's thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.

Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn't want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.

And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president - and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.

I admit I'm giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn't want to make history.

I don't endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts'.) But I think I understand it."

 

[towersniper]

This is the key language, Crock. Comey and Think Progress are talking about this as though it requires one to be intentionally breaking the law. It doesn't. The conduct (using the unsecured private server) is what needs to intentional, and it clearly was.

Nevertheless, let me humor you for a minute and presume the law requires intentionally breaking the law. If HRC didn't know she was breaking the law, then why lie about what she was doing?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[I35]

WOW!

 

[nashhorn]

It just goes on and on and gets worse and worse, surprised? Now let's cover what's important: swimmers lost endorsements.

 

[Horn6721]

What does the average Hillary supporter think they will get that they can continue to ignore this truly mind blowing chit?

 

[Seattle Husker]

WOW!

I thought so too until I looked at a timeline. An announcement of the settlement was made on Dec. 11, 2012. Comey was added to the BOD on March 3, 2013 with the explicit purpose of overseeing a revamping of HSBC's Compliance Dept. A federal judge finally approved the settlement on in July of 2013.

So, based on those facts how truthful would you say that image is? It was close enough to get you to fall for it though right? Because you wanted to believe it, right?

 

[Horn6721]

Husker
yea sure nothing to see here.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker
yea sure nothing to see here.

Are you claiming that picture is accurate? I used facts. What are you standing on?

 

[Horn6721]

By all means let's use the facts.
The FACTS give an optic that even a blind person could not miss.

 

[Seattle Husker]

By all means let's use the facts.
The FACTS give an optic that even a blind person could not miss.

Which of the timeline facts are you disputing? Please be specific. That picture and the timeline are NOT reconcilable.