When is the court date for Hillary?

[texas_ex2000]

The difference is one has had $14M spent on investigations while the other $0.

Clinton would have saved the taxpayers a lot $$$ if she followed and didn't try to evade the Law.

See Deez' reply.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH,

Respectfully, you're on thin ice with this one. It takes quite a few leaps and assumptions to establish that Cheney and/or Bush lied (meaning intentionally made false statements) to justify the Iraq War. It takes no leaps to establish that "it was the video" was a lie, because Clinton admitted in writing that it was a lie. As you rightly pointed out, the stakes were obviously much higher in the Iraq War, but that's really beside the point in determining who's a bad apple and who's not.

Respectfully, I disagree.

In this Frontline episode the lead CIA analyst for Iraq, the person that wrote the report that George Tenet walked over to the Whitehouse is claiming 2 things:
1. The Awlaki tie was greatly exaggerated in the UN speech to the point that everyone at the CIA was guffawed at what was presented.
2. Scooter Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) called the analyst directly to question her analysis which from her perspective was extremely unorthodox since the analyst that writes the report isn't attached to the report.

There is ample evidence that the Bush Administration went looking only for justification for the war. Do I think it's in the best interest of the country to prosecute them for "war crimes"? No, but I think Benghazi was also a ******* boondoggle too. The email crap is real and should be investigated. The other $XM was pure unadulterated tax payer funded political BS.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Clinton would have saved the taxpayers a lot $$$ if she followed and didn't try to evade the Law.

See Deez' reply.

The email stuff was a real problem. The rest was a politically based witch-hunt. What politician ever has gladly bent over to politically motivated witch-hunts, especially one that was married to a man that was subject to a $56M investigation that uncovered an extra-marital BJ?

 

[texas_ex2000]

Respectfully, I disagree.

In this Frontline episode the lead CIA analyst for Iraq, the person that wrote the report that George Tenet walked over to the Whitehouse is claiming 2 things:
1. The Awlaki tie was greatly exaggerated in the UN speech to the point that everyone at the CIA was guffawed at what was presented.
2. Scooter Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) called the analyst directly to question her analysis which from her perspective was extremely unorthodox since the analyst that writes the report isn't attached to the report.

There is ample evidence that the Bush Administration went looking only for justification for the war. Do I think it's in the best interest of the country to prosecute them for "war crimes"? No, but I think Benghazi was also a ******* boondoggle too. The email crap is real and should be investigated. The other $XM was pure unadulterated tax payer funded political BS.

SH,

You typed that as if Awlaki was even on the War Resolution and that there weren't a dozen more factors.

$56M investigation

I'm tracking a theme here. Integrity and character isn't as important as money.

It was just a BJ (in the Oval Office...with an intern...during phone calls with the NSC...and then perjured himself)! Who cares!?

This whole crazy Populist movement and their different Trump/Bernie/Brexit/Tea Party/OWS/Black Lives Matter flavors erupted because of this attitude. A small group of wealthy have been advantaged and live in a different world than regular working people. Those that value honor/character in the old fashioned sense - in my opinion The True sense, do not worship the $ like those with a diluted and malleable view of integrity. And it's not surprising that many folks with a malleable view of integrity happen to be privileged and moneyed.

We shouldn't bankrupt ourselves, but there are important valuable things in life that cannot be measured in $ and GDP.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH,

You typed that as if Awlaki was even on the War Resolution and that there weren't a dozen more factors.

You don't think the marketing of the War Resolution mattered? Dick Cheney played PR Director and visited each Sunday morning news show to trumpet 2 things: 1)WMD and 2) the link between Al Queda and Sadam Hussein.

Sadly, history has proven that the US focus on Awlaki (7 minutes of Powell's UN speech) and subsequent invasion of Iraq pushed a previously rebuffed Awlaki into the arms of Al Queda.

Edit: This is a passionate topic for me because this is one time where I strongly feel our country was led to war by pied pipers who had an agenda stated in 1997 with the Project for a New American Century which very explicitly spelled out exactly what the Neo-Cons were going to do, including projecting American power in the Middle East to "tip" them towards democracy.

 

[texas_ex2000]

You don't think the marketing of the War Resolution mattered? Dick Cheney played PR Director and visited each Sunday morning news show to trumpet 2 things: 1)WMD and 2) the link between Al Queda and Sadam Hussein.

Sadly, history has proven that the US focus on Awlaki (7 minutes of Powell's UN speech) and subsequent invasion of Iraq pushed a previously rebuffed Awlaki into the arms of Al Queda.

SH, You stated Cheney deserved to be investigated for war crimes.

So, again, do you want an opinion of a football message board poster? Or do you want the official written legal record of the War Resolution? https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH, You stated Cheney deserved to be investigated for war crimes.

So, again, do you want an opinion of a football message board poster? Or do you want the official written legal record of the War Resolution? https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

The facts show that Al Awlaki had been shunned by Bin Laden. Like WMD, there were no Al Queda training camps in Iraq which Cheney claimed at one point. Awlaki met with Bin Laden and was sent home with his tail between his legs.

It was obvious at the time that Sadam Hussein would certainly be in Al Qeuda's hit list. The tenuous tie based on a non-existant meeting in Geneva between Sadam and Al Queda was laughable at the time and is so today. Sadam was that anti-thesis of what Bin Laden sought. A modern mostly secular despot ruling over his fiefdom with westernized ideas. Yeah...that makes sense that they'd be great partners.

If you look ONLY at the war resolution you miss the PR tour that Cheney and his Neocon minions undertook to sell the case for war. By the way, I also blame the nitwits that bought it hook line and sinker. The Cheney administrations leveraged the worlds support in the wake of 9/11 to push an agenda.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

 

[texas_ex2000]

I strongly feel our country was led to war by pied pipers who had an agenda stated in 1997 with the Project for a New American Century which very explicitly spelled out exactly what the Neo-Cons were going to do, including projecting American power in the Middle East to "tip" them towards democracy.

Having a neoconservative perspective is not a war crime. Believing in democracy, even naively, isn't a war crime.

It's a world view you don't share. That's fine. But getting from disagreeing with neoconservatives (in a post Cold War/9-11 era mind you) to saying they led us to an illegal war based on lies "trumpeting 2 things" is, as Deez said, skating on thin ice.

In January 2003, I was an intelligence officer in the Navy attached to a reconnaissance squadron supporting OIF1. I read the entire classified version of Powell's UN Brief. I read probably 500+ pages of of other classified assessments from multiple technical and non-technical intel sources dealing with Iraq/AQ/CBRs etc. AA was 1 data point in hundreds - if not thousands.

And by the way, I think Rumsfeld is a d!$k and too impressed with himself. And I'm not a fan of how he ran the occupation (as opposed to Gates who is superb). But he's not a war criminal.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Having a neoconservative perspective is not a war crime. Believing in democracy, even naively, isn't a war crime.

It's a world view you don't share. That's fine. But getting from disagreeing with neoconservatives (in a post Cold War/9-11 era mind you) to saying they led us to an illegal war based on lies "trumpeting 2 things" is, as Deez said, skating on thin ice.

In January 2003, I was an intelligence officer in the Navy attached to a reconnaissance squadron supporting OIF1. I read the entire classified version of Powell's UN Brief. I read probably 500+ pages of of other classified assessments from multiple technical and non-technical intel sources dealing with Iraq/AQ/CBRs etc. AA was 1 data point in hundreds - if not thousands.

And by the way, I think Rumsfeld is a d!$k and too impressed with himself. And I'm not a fan of how he ran the occupation (as opposed to Gates who is superb). But he's not a war criminal.

It was 1 data point yet it took up 7 full minutes of an hour long speech to the UN to justify the war. Imagine that...1 data point among "hundreds" and 10% of Colin Powell's speaking time. Want to try for WMD now?

I'm not arguing that there weren't some reasons but these tenuous reasons weren't picked out of thin air. They were selected for emotional impact. Simply saying "Sadam Hussein has not been cooperative with weapons inspectors" doesn't have the impact of saying "he's working with Al Queda!" Again, this is no different than saying Benghazi was attributable to the anti-Islam video. I'm sure it had a motivating factor to the terrorists.

In the wake of the Chilcot report that thoroughly ripped Blair a new ******* I find this article covers my feelings pretty well: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-americans-dont-care-about-the-chilcot-report-a7123536.html

 

[mchammer]

Both of you guys are completely forgetting that Europe wanted to lift the Iraqi boycott/sanctions, which would have let Saddam reconstitute his chemical weapons program within MONTHS using dual purpose equipment. Also, don't forget that Saddam had bribed half of Europe with his oil for bribes program. If the US had done nothing, Saddam would have had chemical weapons up to his teeth to keep the Iranians out and his people down. In my opinion, there is an equal chance that a similar or greater number of people would have died if the U.S. didn't overthrow Saddam. People are being disingenuous if they don't mention the facts on the ground at the time.

By the way, I agree the post-war period was done poorly, but that does not negate the reasons for Saddam's removal.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Respectfully, I disagree.

In this Frontline episode the lead CIA analyst for Iraq, the person that wrote the report that George Tenet walked over to the Whitehouse is claiming 2 things:
1. The Awlaki tie was greatly exaggerated in the UN speech to the point that everyone at the CIA was guffawed at what was presented.
2. Scooter Libby (Cheney's Chief of Staff) called the analyst directly to question her analysis which from her perspective was extremely unorthodox since the analyst that writes the report isn't attached to the report.

Do I think the Administration had a preconceived desire to overthrow Hussein? Yes. Do I think they emphasized evidence that tended to support their justifications and downplay evidence that did not? Probably so. However, what the war critics have come up with adds up to miscalculations and terrible misjudgment (that was shared by other political leaders worldwide), not lies. To me, for something to be called a lie, the person has to know the statement he's making is false at the time he's making it. (By the way, I think misjudgment on that level is a big deal, and unlike most voters, I actually care about competence. Even if Cheney shouldn't have gone to jail for war crimes, I would have seriously considered impeaching him.)

Let's also look at it simply from a political and common sense standpoint. If Bush and Cheney had known that Hussein truly didn't have a WMD program or ties to Al Qaeda but decided to lie about it, they would have been telling a lie they had no way of getting away with. They would have known that there was going to be a search for evidence of a WMD program and that it was going to come up empty, leaving a hell of a lot of egg on their faces. Ditto with the Al Qaeda ties, etc. No politician is that dumb. They lie, but they never lie if they can't get away it or at least think they'll get away with it, as Hillary did when she claimed the video was the cause of the Benghazi attack.

Here's another thing to consider. If Bush and Cheney were actually willing to lie, don't you think they would have framed Hussein to try to cover up their lies? Our troops never found evidence of a WMD program or Al Qaeda ties, but we sure as hell could have faked it. We could have covertly hidden WMD materials set up phony terror training facilities throughout Iraq and allowed our troops to find them. Nobody would have known any better, and Bush and Cheney would look like heroes today.

The point is that Bush, Cheney, et al. didn't act like liars. They acted like people who very strongly believed what they were saying, even though they were wrong.

There is ample evidence that the Bush Administration went looking only for justification for the war. Do I think it's in the best interest of the country to prosecute them for "war crimes"? No, but I think Benghazi was also a ******* boondoggle too. The email crap is real and should be investigated. The other $XM was pure unadulterated tax payer funded political BS.

The email stuff was a real problem. The rest was a politically based witch-hunt. What politician ever has gladly bent over to politically motivated witch-hunts, especially one that was married to a man that was subject to a $56M investigation that uncovered an extra-marital BJ?

The problem with this is that the Clintons never act like innocent people. Suppose you come home at 2:00 a.m. Seconds before you arrive, you hear your home security alarm going off and see a man running down your street wearing a ski mask and carrying a gun. Would you want the police to investigate that guy? He might just be a dude who likes practicing his sprints at 2 a.m. wearing a ski mask and carrying a gun, but isn't he acting a bit suspiciously? Well, the Clintons act like that guy. When some **** goes down, they act guilty. They summarily deny everything with no explanation, lie repeatedly, hide and destroy evidence, throw up diversions, attack their accusers, etc. To fair-minded people, that's suspicious and warrants investigation. Furthermore, investigating people who act that way is time consuming and expensive, but the fact that it is shouldn't make law enforcement choose not to do it because more often than not, the people who behave that way are doing so for a reason.

And you're spouting the DNC talking points about Lewinsky, and you're better than that. Look at it in a non-political context. If you had whipped it out at work and told a subordinate to drop to her knees for you and you'd get her a promotion (which she refuses), which led to you getting sued, and then in the course of the litigation, you went on to deceive a the civil court and a grand jury about getting another subordinate to actually drop to her knees for you, don't you think you'd get fired? Do you think you'd be able to get out of getting fired by claiming that it's all a private matter between you and Mrs. Husker and not your company's business? I doubt it. If you were the boss, would you keep that employee? I'll bet you wouldn't.

Also, I'll readily admit that I'm skeptical of the claim that Hillary screwed something up that led to the Benghazi attack or its success. However, if there's truly nothing to the issue at all, then why lie about it? Why not just tell the truth?

In the wake of the Chilcot report that thoroughly ripped Blair a new ******* I find this article covers my feelings pretty well: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-americans-dont-care-about-the-chilcot-report-a7123536.html

I totally understand, and I think there should be outrage over the Iraq War and not only the pre-invasion and intelligence screw-ups abut also the failures associated with the occupation. However, calling people liars without proof doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look like a raging partisan, when you aren't. It also doesn't help to tie every bad thing that's going on in the Middle East to that screw-up. If Hussein hadn't been overthrown by the US, might he have been overthrown through Arab Spring-style revolutions? Sure. Might he have died for health reasons? Quite possibly. Either one would likely have caused a power vacuum that led to the empowerment of crazy Islamists wanting to establish a caliphate. The Middle East was a mess before the Iraq War, and it would be a mess today had we never launched the Iraq War.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Both of you guys are completely forgetting that Europe wanted to lift the Iraqi boycott/sanctions, which would have let Saddam reconstitute his chemical weapons program within MONTHS using dual purpose equipment. Also, don't forget that Saddam had bribed half of Europe with his oil for bribes program. If the US had done nothing, Saddam would have had chemical weapons up to his teeth to keep the Iranians out and his people down. In my opinion, there is an equal chance that a similar or greater number of people would have died if the U.S. didn't overthrow Saddam. People are being disingenuous if they don't mention the facts on the ground at the time.

By the way, I agree the post-war period was done poorly, but that does not negate the reasons for Saddam's removal.

Europe was trying to lift all the sanctions? France and Russia were leading the cause for the lifting of some sanctions due to a mounting humanitarian crisis that was ongoing. For example, the infant mortality rate had doubled and was continuing to accelerate in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. To my memory and a brief Google search, nobody was advocating lifting anything but sanctions that directly impacted the humanitarian crisis. I haven't read the Chilcot report yet (12 books!) but I suspect it would say the same. The world clearly would have supported continuing weapons and WMD material bans.

Saddam was a bad man but one that was interested only in his own power. He had already been smacked down in the first war but needed the appearance of strength to maintain his power in Iraq. The no-fly zone could have been maintained in perpetuity.

 

[mchammer]

Europe was trying to lift all the sanctions? France and Russia were leading the cause for the lifting of some sanctions due to a mounting humanitarian crisis that was ongoing. For example, the infant mortality rate had doubled and was continuing to accelerate in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. To my memory and a brief Google search, nobody was advocating lifting anything but sanctions that directly impacted the humanitarian crisis. I haven't read the Chilcot report yet (12 books!) but I suspect it would say the same. The world clearly would have supported continuing weapons and WMD material bans.

Saddam was a bad man but one that was interested only in his own power. He had already been smacked down in the first war but needed the appearance of strength to maintain his power in Iraq. The no-fly zone could have been maintained in perpetuity.

Your memory differs from mine. I recall all sorts of cries from Europe to end the no-fly zone and the sanctions. In my opinion, if US did not invade, all sanctions would have been removed within 2 years.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I totally understand, and I think there should be outrage over the Iraq War and not only the pre-invasion and intelligence screw-ups abut also the failures associated with the occupation. However, calling people liars without proof doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look like a raging partisan, when you aren't. It also doesn't help to tie every bad thing that's going on in the Middle East to that screw-up. If Hussein hadn't been overthrown by the US, might he have been overthrown through Arab Spring-style revolutions? Sure. Might he have died for health reasons? Quite possibly. Either one would likely have caused a power vacuum that led to the empowerment of crazy Islamists wanting to establish a caliphate. The Middle East was a mess before the Iraq War, and it would be a mess today had we never launched the Iraq War.

I'm working now thus don't have time to address the entire post but would like to say one thing. The Middle East was screwed up. I think the Arab Spring was triggered by the Iraq War thus created the vacuum that Islamic Fundamentalists stepped into.

 

[I35]

I'm working now thus don't have time to address the entire post but would like to say one thing. The Middle East was screwed up. I think the Arab Spring was triggered by the Iraq War thus created the vacuum that Islamic Fundamentalists stepped into.

I disagree. They were running for their lives to caves or anywhere out of sight. It started when we pulled out of Iraq when the generals strongly advised against it to Obama. You can argue if we should have been there or not in the first place, but once there we should have stayed until advised not to. If 20 years so be it. We have to do whatever makes us safe. Letting them grow in that region is making America less safe (as seen by the refugees in the other countries and soon here)

 

[texas_ex2000]

I'm working now thus don't have time to address the entire post but would like to say one thing. The Middle East was screwed up. I think the Arab Spring was triggered by the Iraq War thus created the vacuum that Islamic Fundamentalists stepped into.

The Middle East has been screwed up and in conflict for 2000+ years long before any of us or even the United States existed. Unfortunately, we live in a period of disruptive technological revolution called Globalization - financial contagion, energy dependence, weapons evolution, social media, intercontinental jet travel, alliances/borderless societies brings and magnifies this millenia long conflict right to our front door. Faulty intelligence and assessments aren't the reason the world is the way it is.

There are a few things confirmed this year, 1) the Clintons are corrupt and 2) there will always be conflict in the Middles East.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Needless to say, HRC was a colossal BSer throughout the investigation.

That's why it's so annoying when Dems stonewall and deflect and destroy evidence, and then complain after the process about how much money was spent trying to tie together all the threads that they had intentionally broken and hidden from investigators.

And you're spouting the DNC talking points about Lewinsky, and you're better than that. Look at it in a non-political context. If you had whipped it out at work and told a subordinate to drop to her knees for you and you'd get her a promotion (which she refuses), which led to you getting sued, and then in the course of the litigation, you went on to deceive a the civil court and a grand jury about getting another subordinate to actually drop to her knees for you, don't you think you'd get fired? Do you think you'd be able to get out of getting fired by claiming that it's all a private matter between you and Mrs. Husker and not your company's business? I doubt it. If you were the boss, would you keep that employee? I'll bet you wouldn't.

This is the point I've never understood why the media couldn't seem to grasp. Not just the media - I had friends who said "hey... he's the president!! If he can't have some inter-office fun with hot women, who can??" This is behavior that would have gotten him fired at any publicly owned company in the U.S. Had it been a republican, the feminist crowd would have (rightly) been up in arms about taking advantage of power and station to sexually exploit a young employee.

 

[Crockett]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any quoting or commentary on quotes from those directly involved in the decision not to prosecute. Here are a couple of salient points from a Think Progress Article. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/07/3796264/gop-overreach-so-hard/:

During his initial statement announcing that Clinton should not face charges, however, Comey explained that the FBI could not “find a case that would support bringing criminal charges” under this gross negligence standard either. To the contrary, all previous prosecutions for similar offenses involved particularly egregious conduct such as “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an interference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Early in his congressional testimony on Thursday, Comey expanded upon this analysis, explaining that prosecutions under the “gross negligence” provision are so rare that there’s only been one such prosecution in the 100 years since that law was enacted. At several other points, he suggested that the gross negligence law is unconstitutional.

Indeed, in his single most important statement, Comey did not simply reject Trump’s claim that Clinton benefits from a #RiggedSystem, he said that the opposite is true. In light of the near absence of any prosecutions for alleged gross negligence and that fact that previous prosecutions in similar cases all involved egregious factors that are not present in Clinton’s case, Comey responded to a line of hostile questions from Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) with a rhetorical question and answer — “you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.”

Republicans, in other words, aren’t asking for Clinton to be held to the same standard as other

 

[iatrogenic]

Was there "one prosecution", or were there "all" previous prosecutions?

Regardless, reasonable minds can easily disagree on intent in this case.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Predictably, coming from ThinkProgress, that's garbage. The first paragraph is not fact, it's Comey's spin on the situation, and I'd say it's VERY much open to debate that it's true. Then he argues that it's never used... which may or may not be true but doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted and certainly doesn't speak to whether something of this magnitude has ever been under consideration for prosecution. None that I know of come to mind.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any quoting or commentary on quotes from those directly involved in the decision not to prosecute. Here are a couple of salient points from a Think Progress Article. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/07/3796264/gop-overreach-so-hard/:

A very good friend of mine, a huge Feminist/raised in SF/lives in Manhattan/Yale grad and a former colleague of min in the IC, had a discussion a month ago. Even though we're great friends, she thinks I'm an alien because I have these character traits growing up in Texas...like following through on promises even when it's inconvenient, opening doors for people, shooting guns, cooking with bacon fat - I'm her window to a completely different world.

She's Hillary all the way and can't stand Bernie or his idiotic parasitic minions. I asked her a month ago, "E...you had a TS/SCI/SAP clearance. What would happen to you or me if the FBI were investigating us for what Hillary did?" She goes, "well...yeah we'd be in jail."

There's no technicality or legal loophole here. The argument stops at "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information," There is no "or." There is no need to even go down the "gross negligence" road.

EVERYONE in the IC knows classified material when they see/read it. You don't need markings to know something is classified. You certainly can't say you had no idea you were sending and receiving classified material when presented with 110 emails with 8 of them at the SCI/SAP level. It's really a ludicrous excuse. It would be like Bill saying he didn't definitively know he was getting serviced by Monica in the Oval Office because he had his eyes closed.

When you have a clearance and you see the 1st violation and ignore it and do it again, you have clearly, intentionally, and willfully mishandled classified material. End of story.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Curious...is the prevailing feeling amongst the conservatives that Comey is part of the conspiracy to protect HRC?

In reading up on Comey he's a registered Republican and was Asst. Attorney General in the Bush Admin. Most notably, he was the one that rushed into Ashcroft's hospital room to stop him from signing something that would have greatly expanded the use of wiretaps.

Of course, the media spin is that he's a man of integrity highly thought of by both the right and left and was lauded when Obama nominated him.

Is he suddenly persona non-grata, part of the Clinton conspirators?

 

[mchammer]

Curious...is the prevailing feeling amongst the conservatives that Comey is part of the conspiracy to protect HRC?

In reading up on Comey he's a registered Republican and was Asst. Attorney General in the Bush Admin. Most notably, he was the one that rushed into Ashcroft's hospital room to stop him from signing something that would have greatly expanded the use of wiretaps.

Of course, the media spin is that he's a man of integrity highly thought of by both the right and left and was lauded when Obama nominated him.

Is he suddenly persona non-grata, part of the Clinton conspirators?

FBI is apparently investigating the Clinton Foundation as well. Maybe Comey is keeping his powder dry until the real damning evidence comes in.

 

[Seattle Husker]

FBI is apparently investigating the Clinton Foundation as well. Maybe Comey is keeping his powder dry until the real damning evidence comes in.

That's possible. He specifically wouldn't answer any questions today on any other investigations. One congressman asked him point blank whether there was anything in the email tied to the Clinton Foundation.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Curious...is the prevailing feeling amongst the conservatives that Comey is part of the conspiracy to protect HRC?

I can't speak for the prevailing feeling, but personally I think he's a guy who has been confronted with the reality that comes with pursuing criminal charges against one party's presumptive nominee for president in an election year which will basically define the SCOTUS for a generation to come. I said from the beginning that there was no chance the investigation would lead to charges, and that had nothing to do with whether the head of the FBI thought they were warranted or not.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Comey in his own words: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...xplain-fbi-directors-decision-on-clinton-case

NPR clipped 7 responses during the Congressional hearing to questions from Reps. I believe Comey is genuine, at least he comes across as such in his responses. They are a good list in you have 10-15 minutes.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I can't speak for the prevailing feeling, but personally I think he's a guy who has been confronted with the reality that comes with pursuing criminal charges against one party's presumptive nominee for president in an election year which will basically define the SCOTUS for a generation to come. I said from the beginning that there was no chance the investigation would lead to charges, and that had nothing to do with whether the head of the FBI thought they were warranted or not.

Agree 100%. I think 99% of the time, Comey believes the blindfolded lady holding the scales indicts.

But this is that absurdly unique circumstance that, as guilty as sin as she is and as fundamental equal justice is to our society, is bigger than justice. As divided as we are now, indictment wouldnhve ripped this country apart (or, otoh maybe a lot of democrats would have been relieved and could slot in Biden).

Maybe Comey did the republicans a favor by delivering a completely neutered proven liar of a democrat nominee, rather than giving the Democrats a chance to nominate a superior candidate well in advance of the election.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

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.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any quoting or commentary on quotes from those directly involved in the decision not to prosecute. Here are a couple of salient points from a Think Progress Article. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/07/3796264/gop-overreach-so-hard/:

I'm calling probable ******** on Think Progress. I'm not calling definite ********, because I'd defer to NJ or huisache if they know more about this particular law and take issue with me. However, I'm extremely skeptical. People are questioning why Comey says Hillary hasn't shown herself to have been grossly negligent but acknowledges that she has been extremely careless. That's a fair question to ask. However, the statute that deals with intentional conduct is the bigger problem for me.

Comey (and Think Progress) are running with this idea that there's no evidence of intent or "knowingly breaking the law." In the legal context, that isn't what intent is about. Ignorance of the law and therefore whether or not you're knowingly breaking the law isn't a defense. You can't say "I didn't know it was illegal" and get a pass. When a law requires one to prove intent, it means that you're intending to do the illegal conduct, not intending to violate the law. For example, a common definition of murder is to knowingly or intentionally cause the death of the other person. The intent has to do with causing someone's death. Nobody cares if you knew you were breaking a law when you did it.

If Hillary wants to argue that she didn't know she was using a private server or that she was dealing with classified information, then OK. We can talk about that. However, nobody is suggesting that. She knew what she was doing.