FBI Announces No Charges Against Hillary Over Use of Email Server

The FBI put an end to speculation that Hillary Clinton will face charges for her use of a private email server. Director James Comey said today at a press conference that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges. He said there was no evidence she intended to send or receive classified emails. The FBI press release is here.

Even Bernie Sanders knew the email issue wasn't worth the hype. But it's good that they made the announcement before the convention. [More....]

As I was transferring files from an old computer to a newer one this weekend, I found more than 400 videos (none more than about 5 seconds) I had taken with a "Flip video camera" (remember them?)at the 2008 DNC convention in Denver. The crowd was so excited for hours waiting for Obama's speech. I can only imagine the huge response Hillary will get, especially being the first female Democratic nominee. The announcement by the FBI should remove any residual doubt Democrats might have that it could break her campaign. The Donald's continued rants about it, just like his other missteps, will only shore up support for Hillary, as his unpreparedness to serve as President and Commander in Chief becomes more obvious.

Anyone expecting Republican leaders to take Comey to task for the FBI finding will be disappointed. Many Republican leaders remain more opposed to Trump than Hillary.

On a related note, there were also about 50 5 second videos in the Flip file that I had taken I at a McCain-Palin rally at an aircraft hanger in Colorado Springs, which I attended at the request of Salon, to write an article about it. It was pitiful. A bunch of middle aged, mostly overweight, almost exclusively white people roaming around. They would start slogans that never took off, like "Viva McCain." This vehicle was in almost every frame.

I have no doubt that this will soon be the fate of the Donald's campaign. He can thump the podium all he wants, and notwithstanding his loud, mostly uninformed, monochromatic followers, his campaign will hit life support status well before November.

Trump has even been looking very tired lately.

< Monday Night (July 4th) Open Thread | Oscar Pistorius Sentenced to 6 More Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I love that the right is now (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    Wetting it's pants about the fact that Comey made an explanatory statement.  When of course they would have been wetting their pants if he had not.

    this is excellent (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    for Hillary & will shore up her support among independents in swing states who have been on the fence

    they are totally voting for her now even though the Trump campaign is turning Comey's statement into a series of attack ads

    it was prudent of the FBI director to refer this matter to the ballot box

    Not just this (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    The final fizzle of Benghazi happened days ago.

    Yes.  I would say this is a rather pivotal development.


    I don't see it (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    As creating confidence in Madame Sec, he lied through her teeth for past year,
    And walked up to the gross negligence line,
    (And per Comey, did not cross)

    If anything , it just validates her awful trustworthy polling numbers.

    Her only benefit...Her opponent


    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    get why you guys keep playing personality politics. Oh, yeah, that's right. You have to because your ideas totally suck.

    Yes, let's remind the voters once again how the GOP wastes time and money on investigations that they end up losing. Twice in the last week the GOP has been caught with their pants down.


    But, of course, you don't or (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    won't see it.  You are too deep into not seeing any outcome in this email matter other than what you & your associates wanted to see.  In the situation at hand, it never was going to be about your eyesight...nor was it going to be about mine.
    In all honesty, I would have trouble seeing any outcome than the one FBI Director Comey announced ...for two reason ... personal & political on my part.  I confess to that; and, you acknowledge what on your part.

    Beyond the personal interest, I had difficulty reaching beyond any conclusion other than "careless" from the get-go.  Mostly, I suppose, from my years' of legal experience in the federal enforcement sector--including, especially, the practice of developing a case with DOJ and additional experience in matters of information disclosure involving my own agency, other agencies, & the ongoing disagreement/differing approaches found among them (particularly with IG recommendations) ... from even that limited experience (and, definitely, prior to the complications of more recent information transfer issues) the direction of this matter had always been obvious apart from politics.  In fact, Director Comey clearly, succinctly, and helpfully listed the factors (individually) that would be needed to have given rise to further serious consequences such as a recommendation to charge.  Just as clearly he enunciated why the reality of being careless in the matter of emails here--as HRC has straightforwardly acknowledged as her mistake--in no way approaches the level of further action.  "No reasonable prosecutor" could contemplate charges, as Comey openly said.

    In the world of politics, tho, the recommendation from the FBI for "no action" will not end conspiracy theories of a new variety among a number of Repubs ...because they are not compensated for "seeing" Comey's effective conclusion.  For Democrats like myself, we appreciate & cheer the result ...and, I most especially applaud Director Comey's personal and open explanatory announcement.  He is a forthright individual ... and, by not shifting the responsibility off his own shoulders (since the outcome was so obvious to so many lawyers all along) he allowed all of us to see government in its most transparent reality.  Note: While many commentators from both sides are on record before this as saying that he is highly respected throughout DC, until his powerful statement I did not understand how courageous he could be in the pursuit of justice over politics.

    Meanwhile, could I suggest, trevor, that you might want to reassess your dominant anti-HRC position in general as well as in particular.  There is no shame in taking a relook at what you want in a president -- many of us (even preachy me) have done that with candidates in the past and changed completely -- and, in that sense and most recently, maybe even weigh the "carelessness" in context. I can think of no better way to do that than taking a close look at the pushing of hate so evident in Trump's campaign ... e.g., from Mexico to U.S. District Judges who happen to be of Mexican heritage, to the anti-Black inspired birther movement (the fabricated Kenya conspiracy) and courting of the Klan with David Duke et al, to the numerous statements threatening no entry/deportation & fear mongering about Muslims & their religion, and to the most recent anti-Semitic symbolism of Star of David against the stereotypical $$$$ greed lifted again from a White Supremacist publication. (Not to be forgotten, yet, would be the numerous sexist remarks from him recorded over the years ... e.g., the noxious recent incident about blood & M. Kelley.)  That is for starters ... needless to say, the patterns of hatred in these & other areas demonstrates hatred-peddling on a level much deeper than simple, correctable carelessness.

    There are levels of mistakes in law & in ethics. Consider that the context of comparison between these two political opponents might reveal--in an ethical sense--a venial sin of a careless email approach by HRC; and, the continuing commission of deeper mortal sins by Donald Trump with his hate-spreading that divide Americans to the extent that would truly render our country weaker in the world today.

    Herewith ends my sermon.


    I cannot vote for either (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    Consider that the context of comparison between these two political opponents might reveal--in an ethical sense--a venial sin of a careless email approach by HRC; and, the continuing commission of deeper mortal sins by Donald Trump

    For Madame Sec, it is just another confirmation of her life in politics. too many, too often the Clintons walk up to the line of ethics

    Trump, has tapped into some divisive political issues,
    Of which some I agree in some part, Control of our immigration system foremost.
    He makes it quite inflammatory, he just can't help himself.

    I have no candidate, I believe Gary Johnson is a open borders guy, Ahhhh, woe is me.


    To be fair (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    I don't see anything that would inspire confidence in anyone voting for  Republican for dog catcher, let alone a national level job - between the incompetence, corruption, complete disdain for the Constitution, and just general ignorance.

    At least (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:15:27 PM EST
    around here ignorance is to be lauded and embraced. The dumber you are the better candidate you're supposed to be it seems.

    Quite surprising the head of the law (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    enforcement agency doing the investigation holds a presser indepent of the prosecuting agency while recommending decline to prosecute.

    It's politics (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:10:06 PM EST
    After the jihad screeching about Bill and Loretta exchanging pictures of grandchildren, it got shoved onto Comey.

    I'm not sure he's the best one to explain everything though and he seems to not know a whole lot.


    No it did not (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    This is exactly what Andrea Mitchell said today and Pete Williams set her straight.  

    that's how it works (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:19:14 PM EST
    law enforcement investigates and passes its findings with a recommendation onto the prosecutors (DOJ.) Considering the person under investigation is the presumptive Democratic nominee, it was proper and important for them to release their findings. (Only if they concluded otherwise, should they have stayed silent, to protect the rights of the subject/target of the investigation).

    Prosecutors are ethically bound not to file charges unless they have a good faith belief they can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Almost every crime requires not just an act but a culpable mental state. The mental state of "intentionally" or "willfully" is the highest one. (Exceptions are things like not wearing a seatbelt.)


    That isn't how it (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    worked here. DA would be mightily pissed.

    Unusual situation (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    Not a lawyer or do I play one here but I can see why it was the right thing to do.

    He would definitely have been criticized if he had not explained how the decision was reached.


    I (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    think it was important for him to demonstrate that the decision not to prosecute was made by his agency and not politically influenced from above. For all intents and purposes he shot down any and all possible coverup theories (not that the dead enders won't try).

    Disagree. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    You disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    It was the right thing to do or that he would have been criticized if he had not done it.

    Cause I can just about guarantee you he would have been criticized if he had just done without making some kind of a statement.


    Unprecedented. He should have (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    sent the investigative package w/a recommendation decline to prosecute. That's his job. Not grandstanding. He basically kept the furor alive, which was probably his intent.

    A former DOJ spokesperson agrees with you (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    Matthew Miller, former Director of the Office of Public Affairs,  tweeted this:

    Absolutely outrageous presser by Comey. DOJ/FBI is supposed to speak in court. If it won't make statements in court, it shouldn't make them.

    If he had done that (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    Allegations of a cover up would have exploded.  Use your head.  This is not a typical case.

    You were a film person. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    I was a prosecutor.

    I understand prosecution, too, oculus (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    Seriously, I believe that this highly unusual situation involving the presumptive Democratic nominee shortly before the convention in an election year AND where the matter has been over-the-top (some would say) publicized deserved the clear statement from FBI Director Comey that he gave.  Also: From a political standpoint, it will lessen the predicted and likely preplanned outcry from Repubs because--even tho they will whine about the result, they now have to focus on the heretofore very respected Republican FBI Director Comey for not allowing them to enjoy the full extent of complaining until election day.

    In this time and in these circumstances, it is not practically possible to separate out the manner & scope of the recommendation announcement from the intense campaign of this political year.  Director Comey, imo, performed a commendable service for the American public.


    Ragebot (none / 0) (#15)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    May have come across one of the reasons.
    FBI Agents would likely have leaked portions of the investigation indicating the damaging evidence,
    Comey may have figured he would get out in front of that, and highlighted what they found, but declared it not sufficient for prosecution.
    Maybe trying to prevent fallout within his own agency
    Along with being transparent with the public regarding a high profile case

    Still seems to violate (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    The DOJ policy regarding commenting during an open investigation.

    My guess is, he got the blessing from Lynch to do so.


    Once again (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:17:14 PM EST
    Pete Williams AND OTHERS have reported today this was planned for weeks and requested by people like Williams.

    So? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    Reporters request things all the time. Doesn't mean they get it (especially with policies and rules in place that are contra to that request).

    This still would have had to been approved by Lynch, regardless if it was yesterday or 4 months ago.


    Ok (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    Lynch approved weeks ago.  I'll buy that.  It had squat to do with the Clinton Lynch meeting.  This public statement has been planned for weeks.   By Comey.  He is the head of the FBI.

    The FBI (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    Is part of the DOJ.  Comey reports to Lynch.  (Actually, technically, like all subagency heads, he reports to Sally Q. Yates, the Deputy Attorney General).

    What is your point? (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    That Lynch or Yates should have made the statement?  Because a statement was going to be made.  There is just no way in hell it was not.  Do you thnk they should have stepped on Comey?

    That Comey (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Didn't do this all on his own.

    Chill out, man.

    That was the only point.


    That Comey (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:51:48 PM EST
    Didn't do this all on his own.

    Chill out, man.

    That was the only point.


    Can only surmise (none / 0) (#13)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    that he was put squarely in the cross-hairs after his boss publicly but the monkey on his back.

    And, as the Director, he felt the requirement to defend the organization and its reputation - as best possible in the situation.

    Not an ordinary Law Enforcement/Prosecutor scenario by any manner.


    Wait, what (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:13:27 PM EST
    It was an FBI investigation.  I believe that placed whatever simian he carried on his back.  He was always going to make the decision and it's been known and reported for weeks that a public statement would be made n the subject.

    Pete Williams and others have reported that today.  Williams also said that he and many others had REQUESTED a statement explaining how any decision was reached.


    You know what (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:13:43 PM EST
    she did put the monkey on his back but she was almost forced to by the screeching conservative jihad over Bill and Loretta talking about grandchildren on the tarmac. They would have never accepted any decision that came from her and probably even before the tarmac they would not accepted it.

    First, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    Captain Howdy, stop insulting other commenters and please don't respond to every comment. That's blog-clogging. We close comments at 200 and off topic comments like those about how you feel about people who agree or disagree with you are not relevant to the topic. Please don't play moderator. You are free to express your views, in moderation, but don't be disrespectful of those that feel differently and mocking is not tolerated here

    Second, as to those who think it's unusual for the FBI to comment about a decision not to recommend charges, it is not that rare. Example: This joint release by the FBI and AG (both of which are part of DOJ) announcing no criminal charges for G. Zimmerman.

    One reason grand juries operate in secret is to protect those who don't get charged -- so their reputations are not sullied. It was publicly known that Clinton was under investigation. Since those doing the investigation determined there was insufficient evidence to establish an essential element of the crime -- intent -- they were well within their discretion in releasing their findings and reasons.

    Not according to a former DIJ spokesperson (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    As I quoted above.

    The difference with your example and Zimmerman and this case is that the Zimmerman was a joint release as you note at the end of am investigation, which means the DOJ prosecutors decided not to press charges.  In this case, the DOJ prosecutors have not weighed in and, technically, this is still an ongoing investigation.

    In this matter, I'm sticking with Matthew Miller's take that it wasn't really appropriate.


    Alan Dershowitz (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 07:41:45 AM EST
    I wholeheartedly agree (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by mm on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    Just listen to how it's being characterized.
    I've been reading it all night.

    "Comey called her a liar"

    How does she defend herself in the middle of a campaign to the subjective and speculative statements made by Comey.  Totally unfair.


    There is (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    the whole "classified in the eye of the beholder" aspect that seems to be missing from the argument.

    From the transcript

    FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to  any U.S. government agency that was a likely "owner" of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as "up-classifying").
    (my bold, Comey's scare quotes). IMO you can drive a dumptruck through that "ownership" as to the what, when and why of classification.

    Yup. bottom line - nothing they (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    found was marked 'Classified'. And the FBI is not in the position to make the determination as to whether it was indeed or should have been classified. they did the right thing in trying to find the right agency to make such a determination. My bet is they did not get many takers.

    the problem (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 06:50:27 PM EST
    is there was always a taker, this whole investigation started because the Intelligence agencies insisted that these Emails were classified while the SD thought otherwise.

    In a way Comey hits the nail on the head here

    we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

    Same as it ever was, you might argue that the SD was careless but you could also argue that the Intelligence agencies(and the FBI) are rather anal about the whole "classification" thing(sometimes up to "cone of silence" levels).


    THINKPROGRESS (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 06:28:53 PM EST

    Tuesday morning, FBI Director James Comey announced that his agency's investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's handling of a private email server while she was Secretary of State has come to a close. He also added that the FBI will recommend against criminal charges for Secretary Clinton, stating that "no reasonable prosecutor" could determine that charges were warranted here. It's an announcement that will surprise no one who is familiar with the underlying law and ordinary Justice Department practices in a case such as this one

    Setting aside the bare language of the law, there's also a very important practical reason why officials in Clinton's position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd. For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Post's David Ignatius, "'it's common' that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information." "'It's inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.' People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn't, but they do."
    Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 06:38:44 PM EST
    and Comey himself would face exposure to charges. And then you have the problem of what is "classified". Different departments don't even agree on that.

    what (none / 0) (#122)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:08:23 PM EST
    is your evidence for this statement?

    Comey himself would face exposure to charges

    link, please



    Read (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    the link Howdy linked to above. It makes the point that everybody in government would be exposed to criminal charges.

    yes, i did read it (none / 0) (#130)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:44:06 PM EST
    but your extrapolation is a stretch

    you also appeared to be saying that Comey's recommendation against prosecution was essentially a CYA ploy

    that would be an irresponsible & even inflammatory allegation, hence my request for evidence, but it seems there is none


    No (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    that's not what I meant. I just used him as an example as one of the people that would face exposure if they were going to apply this non law nonsense to everybody in government. There seems to be a basic lack of understanding of the law in this case.

    Had no idea how many heads are exploding (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:07:41 PM EST
    Had to hide another FB friend...'Killary Clinton', oh, how droll.

    I guess they really did believe there was a chance she was going to get indicted?  I never even really considered it, despite the insistence of the Bernie supporters.  

    Not just republican heads (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    I had no doubt. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:15:20 PM EST
    It's hard when your last prayer gets taken away.

    You can (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:24:07 PM EST
    see some of the places that the concern trolls get their material from.

    I'm absolutely convinced this is going to be an election of reasonable people vs. what ever is left.

    In the other thread Coral Gables had SC turning into a swing state. Things are really bad for the GOP and really great for Hillary if she's looking at carrying SC.


    on balance (none / 0) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    Comey's decision will probably drive a few more Trumpeters to the polls & prompt a number of BernieBros to stay home

    maybe that will happen only in deep red & deep blue states


    I watched the competing rallys today (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    Or most of them.  The contrast was striking.   One thing clear was Obama was really enjoying himself.  He's not doing this out of some vague sense of party loyalty or legacy concern.  He clearly hates Donald Trump and wants to crush him.  He was "on" today.  And he is coming for Donald.

    Donald was strange. Big surprise I guess, but I had not watched a Trump speech in months.  He's giving the same speech.  And as for the reason I watched, to see how he would deal with the Comey announcment, he's doing exactly what everyone has said he should not do.   Instead of pressing the "judgement" issues he's going straight for the "rigged system" thing.  That's how he opened the speech.  It's all rigged.  Comey, by inference, is in Hillarys pocket and "protecting" her.

    This is nuts.  Charles Grassley is talking about dragging Comey before some a$$wipe senate committee to make him "explain".  They did not ask me but IMO trying to taint Comey with their CDS is a really really bad idea.


    I (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:48:45 PM EST
    love it when they eat their own, Comey offered up a partisan softball and Trump charged the mound like he saw a fastball to the earhole.

    It seems (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:22:13 PM EST
    Ted Cruz is now jumping in too. I guess they want more grandstanding for the cameras.

    Add (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:40:06 PM EST
    I just saw (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    that. Now it's not only Comey they want to haul the entire FBI in and start questioning everybody. Bizarre.

    Bring. it. On (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 09:18:41 PM EST
    Oh (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    it's moving fast. Now Paul Ryan has jumped on the train and we're moving fast to Comey is a liar and a crook and Lynch was paid off. A few more days and the GOP will be calling for Comey to be fired or to resign.

    By the time (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    November rolls around I doubt this is going to be a factor in anybody's mind. And I don't think it's going to encourage or discourage Trump voters. They're all in with white nationalism so this is just a distraction to them. They were hoping something would happen to Hillary making it easier for Trump but they'll move on.

    i think it could marginally affect turnout (none / 0) (#132)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:51:17 PM EST
    that was my point

    Marginally? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 04:27:50 AM EST
    I also think Johnson will now receive a much larger percentage of the vote than expected

    November seems like light years away (none / 0) (#143)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:55:38 PM EST
    It is hard to believe this is going to have much effect. Plenty of other outrages to come.

    MEDIAITE (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:58:22 PM EST
    This made me laugh.  I'm bad.

    You might think that similar reactions are occurring over at Fox News or Trump headquarters, but the reality is that Bernie Sanders' most devoted fans are the only real losers today. First of all, they are the only people who really expected Hillary Clinton to be indicted. Everyone else knew the story was garbage all along, and used it for whatever purpose they could, and everyone but Bernie fans will still get to do that.

    Let's hope so, Ruffian. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    I'm bored with this one.

    I would hate (none / 0) (#162)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 04:35:59 AM EST
    to live in a swing state.
    You will ads depicting Madame Sec making her claims, followed by Comey surgically eviscerating her claims.
    Non stop , no, this will now not just disappear. And Republicans will keep it front and center until November.
    They will have Comey appear before a committee to answer all the questions left unanswered

    Wrong (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 05:04:11 AM EST
    again. Because the GOP is now saying they are going to investigate Comey and that he's a crook.

    But I'm glad you are conceding that conservatism is a bust. You know, if character assassination is all you have you've lost the argument already.


    Stop it (none / 0) (#164)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 05:25:46 AM EST
    You are embarrassing yourself

    Clinton told primary voters she will fight the TPP

    Clinton told primary voters she as all in with Black Lives Matter

    What other campaign promises did she make?

    How can anyone expect her to fulfill those promises. She will lie to win a campaign. She has just proven it. All of the Bernie supporters must be furious. If, a very big if concerning Madame Sec, she had told the truth, quite foreign to her, The Bern would now be the Democratic standard bearer for President.
    Now how the hell are those supporters supposed to believe Madame Sec?
    Madame Sec successfully has assassinated her own character


    Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 05:40:34 AM EST
    you can continue to twist yourself into a pretzel twisting words and spinning but you simply cannot face the truth and it is that conservatism is a bust and if all you have are character attacks you have lost the argument.

    You're the one embarrassing yourself. You know, you're the one that has been shopping conspiracy theories from wingnut welfare.

    Hillary told the truth when she said she was not going to be indicted. The GOP has been lying saying that she was going to be indicted. Right now Comey's reputation is trashed because he stupidly editorialized on a statement and then he probably lied to the GOP about an indictment. That's why he's now the object of ire from Republicans who are now looking to take him down.

    Frankly I'm sitting here laughing and laughing. You and your conservative cohorts have gotten played time and again and yet you never seem to learn.


    lol (none / 0) (#159)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 01:20:28 AM EST
    now Trump is saying that "poor Bernie" lost the "FBI primary"

    So when does the FBI start the investigation (none / 0) (#167)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 07:06:34 AM EST
    of Trump for his security clearance? I guess he has to win first. Oh well.

    "Born classified:" (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 09:44:46 PM EST
    I feel (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 09:46:36 PM EST
    like that whole issue has been completely overlooked. Thanks for the link.

    Good, fair (none / 0) (#168)
    by Nemi on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 07:38:43 AM EST
    and refreshingly level headed explanation.

    Also, Richard Ben-Veniste, mentioned in the piece, had this to say about the email 'thing', a couple of weeks ago: Hillary Clinton's emails are a non-scandal.


    Comey (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    To speak.......very.............slowly........

    To house republicans tomorrow since they apparrently were not able to follow along yesterday.

    He's probably (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    going to get quite a few questions from the democrats on the panel about his breach of DOJ protocol too.

    Interestingly, Alan Dershowitz (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:56:13 AM EST
    agrees w/us.

    Squaring the Circle (none / 0) (#2)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    Not being a lawyer but, am looking at two specific portions of Comey's statement.

    First regarding the legal/criminal definitions he presented:

    Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,


    a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

    Re: grossly negligent.  A quick look at the law.com definition:

    ...It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. ...

    Could some real lawyers here explain how gross negligence (or just regular negligence) isn't in play?  Added item relating to one's own property - Comey stated that the data and devices turned over were cleanly wiped yet the other servers/devices contained data.  The same effort or level of diligence wasn't applied to the other devices.

    Re: improper storage.

    None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government--or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

    The personal server was not an appropriate system or storage facility by the stretch of anyone's definition.

    Not a lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    But day drinking is one way to go.

    Time to move on, guy. No sense giving this dead horse a funeral worthy of Secretariat.

    It was a mistake, even (none / 0) (#27)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    Hillary said it was a mistake.

    Conventional wisdom is that prosecutors are very concerned about their won lost record.  Even in cases like OJ where there seems to be solid evidence jury nullification is a possibility.

    Sure it is easy to say Hillary stored and deleted classified information on an insecure server; not to mention a server that was a subject to hack attacks. As you point out this is not a good idea; but it may not meet the burden of being a crime a prosecutor can prove in court.

    I get the impression you would vote guilty; but several other posters obviously would vote not guilty .  Don't forget it only takes one not guilty vote for the prosecutor's win/loss record to take a hit.

    All this ignores significant political considerations.  No question Hillary would have the best legal counsel money could buy, as well as considerable political support that most likely would spill over to any court ruling on the case.

    Lets assume 50% of the folks support Hillary and 50% don't.  I don't see a reasonable prosecutor bring charges looking at such a jury pool.


    Guilty of what (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:36:30 PM EST

    The reason I, and most people who read, knew there would be no indictment is that the question never was did she do dumb things.  Or did she do things that were ill advised.  The question was always did anyone DILIBERATELY do these things with any sort of malicious intent.

    Like I said, not a lawyer so parse away but that IS the gist.  And why lawyers have been saying for a year there would be no indictment.


    Missing the point (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    You do NOT NEED deliberate intent.

    Gross negligence, (dumb things) (extreme carelessness)
    Is enough to warrant a conviction under one of the prospective charges regarding classified information


    Read up (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:43:15 PM EST
    you need deliberate intent. Deliberate intent is what got Petraeus in trouble.

    Howdy (none / 0) (#44)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    I am stealing your quote

    I'm sorry but you don't know what you (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    Are talking about


    Here you go. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    From Comey's statement (my bolding)

    The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

    Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.


    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.


    But...but (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:01:43 PM EST

    Gross negligence...Sigh... (2.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.

    What would constitute gross negligence? Mr. Vladeck offered an example of accidentally leaving a briefcase stuffed with classified national security secrets on a busy sidewalk in Washington, D.C.

    Comey specifically avoided any mention of the Espionage Act that only requires gross negligence. You DO NOT NEED intent to prosecute for that charge.
    As Howdy says, you only need do DUMB THINGS.


    Here, from the legal dictionary (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:17:15 PM EST
    Is the definition of gross negligence -

    Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care

    What about this are you not understanding?


    conscious and voluntary disregard (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    When the Department you work for, has a e mail system in place , and every employee uses it, when you have been repeatedly told no, you cannot use your blackberry, when the IG for the Dept says she would have been denied her request to use a private server for State Department classified e mail,
    I thought that would fall under conscious and voluntary disregard

    Do you mean this? (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    So you (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:17:26 PM EST
    Condone it?
    Or would that circumventing of law disqualify any of those for running for the Presidency of the United States?

    Is the DoS policy regarding the email (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    server codified into a law? If it were this would have been a slam dunk case.

    Again,her server was never meant for classified email. She would not have even wanted it to - a whole other set of restrictions would have applied, defeating the purpose of having it at all.


    Nor was the .gov (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:36:37 PM EST
    email for classified information, either.  There were at least two government email systems:  one for regular email, one for classified email.

    Hillary used her own server instead of the .gov email.  And, there is no evidence the .gov email was more secure than her server.  In fact, we do know for sure that the .gov email system has been hacked.  


    The law, as written (none / 0) (#89)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:45:38 PM EST
    (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.

    You don't need to intentionally mishandle classified information to be guilty. Gross negligence in your handling of it is enough.


    SEE MY POST BELOW (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    That tears apart your "gross negligence" blanket.

    Also, Comey is a lawyer and a Republican and he didn't think there was evidence to charge.  So, you taking snipoets out on a blog and trying to interpret the facts of this case is a little silly.


    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    Madame Sec removed classified information from its approved location, and placed it on a unauthorized site.
    G mail was more secure

    None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government -- or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

    Where do you get that she moved classified (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:07:40 PM EST

    Is that paragraph you quoted from Comey's statement? I don't think he is is correct in opining about what 'should' be on a classified system if he is not the expert on the particular data - which in a different part of the report he admitted he was not. It is wrong to keep anything on a classified server that does not need to be there.


    Classified information (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:16:52 PM EST
    Born classified, not retroactively made classified, at level Top Secret,
    Was found on her server.
    That information should never have been placed outside of a government secured system.
    Certainly not a system less secure than G mail

    Besides, the IG office in their report stated that they would not have approved any request by Madame Sec to have a private server. She effectively placed Top Secret classified information on a unsecure private e mail system


    Was it marked Classified? (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 06:42:01 PM EST
    and how did it get there - how did it get off the classified server it was 'born' on?

    Why are (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 06:46:53 PM EST
    you asking him? He doesn't seem to even understand that Hillary as SOS was the ultimate arbiter of what is classified and what is not when she was in office. He also doesn't seem to understand that it would be the same thing on the State Department email system which was hacked and hers was not. Heck hers was more secure than the state department apparently since there is no record of hacking yet the State Department definitely was hacked.

    Sigh.... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    If the information originates from another department, NO, Madame Sec doesn't get to decide what is and is not classified.
    We have gone over this before!!
    Director Comey today stated that madame Sec's e mail set up was NOT as secure as any government e mail system, that it was in fact less secure than G mail!!
    If you have any dispute with that please take them up with Director Comey.
    Actually, Ruffian asked very good questions, probing and inquisitive. Questions that will have to be answered eventually.
    FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday he would not recommend criminal prosecution of former secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. But he did suggest another remedy: the loss of her security clearance.

    If she were anyone else, Comey said in a televised press statement, the facts uncovered in the FBI's investigation might cost Clinton her security clearance -- if not her job.

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


    Ga6, don't believe your statement about Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Green26 on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    being the one who ultimately determines whether information is classified or not. I believe it depends on where the information originates. The FBI director said the FBI referred the emails to the government agency that was likely the "owner" of the information, to determine whether the information was classified at the time it was sent or received. See 11th and 12th paragraph of the press release.

    if the "owner" doesn't mark it as (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    classified (and by inference stores it on a secured system) how can "non-owners" know its  classified?

    Ga6, please don't be so silly (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Green26 on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    Did you not read the press release?

    "For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the US Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email...."


    if it was top secret (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 12:37:37 AM EST
    it would be on a secure system - which by definition cannot be transmitted to non-secured system.  

    So how did a classified document stored on a secure system get to Hillary's email?


    Very astute questions (none / 0) (#118)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 06:53:51 PM EST
    Ones that the press today would have like to ask Comey

    Comey did say that in 110 emails (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 10:10:29 PM EST
    There was some kind of classified info. Some of those emails had indicators that the info contained was classified.

    Of course we don't know exactly what the info was or the markings or indicators. Hitchcock would love it.


    Yes, I saw that...not very clear as to (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    how that determination was made...and no info about who originated the emails.

    Most were "confidential" (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:51:38 AM EST
    Know what kinds of things get marked "confidential"?  Emails that might have someone's cell phone number ("personally identifiable information" or PII), for example.

    "Top secret" could include things like NY Times articles about the CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, which is what is reportedly at least one.

    Yep, our nation was at peril.


    Hillary used her own (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    server instead of the .gov email for regular, non-classified email. There was another email system at State for classified information.

    The original error appears to be sending some of these emails to Hillary on the non-classified system.  I don't think that is really Hillary's fault.

    But given the thousands of emails, and just the handful of classified emails in question, it does not appear to be any kind of widespread malfeasance.


    As many military are pointing out (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 10:00:30 PM EST
    This has been a State Department weakness since the invention of email. The military was also weak in this area until they had their $hit stolen a dozen times in Iraq :)

    And didn't BTD write about (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 10:05:34 PM EST
    The same once too, this sporadic info in email has been a State Department weakness since Powell.

    I (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:15:06 PM EST
    doubt all G-mail security staff been vetted for national security reasons, anyway it's the software that does the heavy lifting on security.

    No intent (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    Despite your bleating.

    Maybe Comey... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    is more scared of Biden or Bernie than Hillary...I know I would be if I was a Republican who did not want to see a Democrat elected.  If his decision was politically motivated.

    Well (none / 0) (#194)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    He didn't indict Madame Sec, but surely crippled her campaign.
    Now, the Bern is taking this to the convention,
    What does this do to his state of mind....

    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Bernie? LOL (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:45:25 AM EST
    He just got booed - by House Democrats.

    Oddly enough, The Hill had this same information, but quickly changed the headline and edited the story.  Hmmm...

    Sen. Bernie Sanders was booed during a closed meeting with House Democrats on Wednesday, as lawmakers shouted "Timeline! Timeline!" pressing for his endorsement Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as the party's presidential nominee.

    Sanders did not directly answer Democrats many questions about his intentions, according to a source in the room granted anonymity to discuss the private session.

    "He went in there with his canned talking points from the stump," the source said. "People just weren't having it."

    People (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    at this point are just tired of him and his toddler temper tantrums. The fact that his response to everything is his stump speech makes me wonder if he isn't developing dementia or something.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:51:24 AM EST

    At one point, boos erupted when Sanders told the Democrats "the goal is not to win elections," but to "transform America."

    Honest to god


    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    Trump spent about a third of his rally yesterday quoting and praising Sanders.

    Seriously starting to think he might be Trumps VP.    Can anyone be sure he would not take it.

    I agree with ga.  That quote about how it's not about winning elections is like the political equivalent of putting your keys in the refrigerator.


    Amazing indeed... (none / 0) (#208)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    Democrats don't get paid for making America a better place, they get paid for winning elections.

    I'm shocked they don't share our goals...shocked! lol


    Bernie (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    is going to have a sad rally somewhere in Philly. I know you constantly indulge in wishful thinking but you've now gone over the top with it. LOL.

    It's time to take your medicine, Trevor.


    Kdog (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:29:24 AM EST
    nobody is scared of Bernie. I would say Comey acts like he's more afraid of Hillary. However Biden is not running so there's no way to know.

    If Hillary got indicted... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:35:18 AM EST
    I'm confident the Dem establishment and their preferred checkbooks would find a way to give it to Biden over Bernie.  If Comey has political motivations, he would want to avoid that.  Biden doesn't have Clinton-level negatives.

    Not to say I have any reason to believe Comey was playing Machiavelli with the law here...outside of my default suspicion of everything the FBI and their sister acronyms do is laced with shady.


    Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:43:16 AM EST
    even admitted he doesn't think winning elections matter. I think he's got it backwards. So yeah, nobody wants someone on the top of the ticket that has no interest in winning a general election.

    FYI Comey has a long history with Hillary. He was general counsel on Whitewater. So there's CDS and an interest in taking her down but the fact of the matter is she didn't do anything. So he had to swallow hard and move on.


    The overlooked key statutory language (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Michael Masinter on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:58:35 PM EST
    The espionage act concerns information "relating to the national defense," not "classified information." To be grossly negligent, you must first know that the information relates to the national defense. No information contained in the emails was marked classified when received or otherwise marked in such a way as to make clear that it related to the national defense. Therefore, there is no probable cause to charge a crime.

    We do not have an official secrets act.


    the fbi claims (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 12:00:48 AM EST
    113 emails in 50+ chains - which works out to about 0.37% of the 30,000 emails. IMO, gross negligence should be alot greater then 0.37%  

    We don't know how many classified documents Hillary properly handled in her 4 years as SOS but whatever the number it will further dilute the 0.37% of "improper" handling.

    We don't know how many "improperly handled" emails were real-world necessary - communicating with a diplomat ASAP who did not have access to  a secure device.

    IMO, this doesn't even meet Comey's "extremely careless" let alone "gross negligence"


    Let me see.... I only shot one person (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 07:45:00 AM EST
    113 emails in 50+ chains - which works out to about 0.37% of the 30,000 emails. IMO, gross negligence should be alot greater then 0.37%  

    so you can't convict me of murder.


    So you're (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 07:53:25 AM EST
    comparing an bureaucratic accuracy rate of 99.63% to murder? Bizarre and especially bizarre when you have advocated that murderers as long as they wear a police badge should not be prosecuted.

    The GOP has come to a fork in the road. They can either admit that they have been lying to you about all this for over a year or they can attempt to take down Comey. They have chosen to now go after Comey.  


    If you had intent we could (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 07:53:36 AM EST
    If you had no intent, you might get off with a justifiable homicide.

    Intent is the only thing that matters, so great job on another bad example.


    And by shot one person.. (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:10:55 AM EST
    you're thinking of what?

    Vince Foster?


    Let's see what else (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    Professor Vladeck had to say about it.

    Then, the two criminal statutes to which Clinton's critics point seem to require more than what's happened here. A section of the Espionage Act of 1917 makes it a crime for a government officer to engage in "gross negligence" that allows national security secrets to be removed from their "proper place of custody." Even if there were an argument that merely discussing sensitive subjects over email is tantamount to removing them from proper custody, the widespread use of private email servers by other government officials would make it near-impossible to establish "gross negligence" here.

    The federal statute that deals with the less serious offense of mishandling classified information only makes it a crime for an official to "knowingly remove" such material "without authority and with the intent to retain" it. Again, it's not clear that merely discussing classified information is what Congress meant to prohibit. But even if it were, there's nothing to suggest that, unlike former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who physically removed secret documents from the National Archives, Clinton intended to deprive the government of possession of the information discussed in her emails.

    Finally, if the criminal laws were read broadly enough to encompass Clinton's conduct, it's hard to see where that would stop. It is no secret that government officials routinely mishandle classified information, by discussing it in public or through unsecured communications networks, and by failing to follow procedures for storing and transporting it. It's also not a secret that the Espionage Act would criminalize an awful lot of behavior that most of us would find harmless -- like reading newspaper coverage of secret government programs.

    This entire episode underscores that some criminal laws governing classified information are nearly a century old, and that our classification regime incentivizes classification and makes it exceedingly difficult to declassify materials that should never have been secret in the first place.

    Excellent clip ...thanks, jbindc (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    Of course (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    you wouldn't understand. I'm sure it's not something the wingnut welfare brigade has explained to you. They have told you Hillary's case and Petraeus's case are the same but that is not true.

    Unfortunately these days there is one side (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    of the political spectrum that has made understanding things some form of elite intellectualism to be avoided at all costs. You may as well try explaining nuclear physics to my dog.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    I know. From now on I'm just going to say GOP caught with pants down twice in one week. They seem to understand that one.

    Bahaaa, and Darrel Issa is melting (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    Cuz they are the same, Darrel says so.

    And Comey is an idiot cuz first he said he couldn't get into the Apple phone, and then he did. Comey isn't always right :)


    The level of gross negligence (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    Was not reached.  According to a republican head of the FBI.

    Courts don't care is someone is guilty. (none / 0) (#40)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    Courts only care if it can be proven in court that someone is guilty.

    That's right (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    And given what they had nothing could be proven.  To quote Comey "no prosecutor would........."

    This WaPost article contains a very good (none / 0) (#141)
    by Green26 on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:42:22 PM EST
    comparison between Clinton's words and the FBI director's words.


    The article is entitled: "How the FBI director systematically dismantled Hillary Clinton's email defense".

    The author: "Rosalind Helderman is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for the Washington Post."


    An Andrea Mitchell quote (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Green26 on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 12:26:56 AM EST
    "MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell noted the FBI director's account of her private email use "completely disputes" the talking points Clinton's campaign has been promoting since March of last year."

    A number of posters on TL spewed these apparently incorrect talking points over and over. Even after some posters pointed out to them that the talking points were false.

    I am glad Hillary won't be charged, plan to vote for her, and hope she can beat Trump, but the inability of some of you extreme partisans to face up to reality or even discuss the situation is truly nauseating.


    If that were an employer review (none / 0) (#28)
    by NycNate on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    Would you hire a person if a former employer gave this kind of review to a potential employee?

    Comey had a lot of negative things to say about Hillary's carelessness and bad management.  Would you want that said about you?  

    We are electing a President (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    not hiring one. The public will consider Hillary's decades of service to the country as First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S., Senator and Secretary of State, and weigh that against the record of Donald Thump, whose career consists of entrepreneurial activities, which mostly consist of those that promote his name on things related to steaks to golf, to reality TV shows and Miss America pagents. His wealth and success at running businesses are highly debatable. He always has an excuse when they fail. And he's highly litigious, meaning he has no capacity for compromise, which like it or not, is essential for getting legislation passed in a two party system.

    He has zero political experience, he's not particularly insightful on any topic, and his followers seem to be angry white young males or Clinton haters. He will command little respect among world leaders.

    The conflicts of interest should he be President are enormous -- so far he has shown no indication he would divest himself of any of his businesses.
    He will allow his children to run them. He still hasn't released his tax returns.

    That he has three adult telegenic children who somehow turned out okay despite their lack of a stable home life is a testament to the boarding schools and nannies that raised them -- not either of their parents.

    Trump has no chance of winning. The electoral map will wipe him out. A vote for Thump is like buying a pig in a poke. He's unpredictable and has no ability to filter his himself (think before he speaks.) That's very dangerous for the leader of the free world. Even voters who think they hate Hillary will believe by November that the Devil you know is a better bet than the unknown pig in a poke.


    Yeah, it's only the right wingnuts (none / 0) (#30)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    that see the political problem that still exists post-Comey statement.

    Comey's statement was obviously a rebuke, and the Republicans will use it as a cudgel,  

    But no indictment and no indication of criminal intent is an important line of demarcation. The email system she set up was ill-conceived and reckless. That is part of the record voters will consider. But the conclusion lifts the cloud of indictment no candidacy could have sustained.


    David Axelrod - the most noted member of the vast rightwing conspiracy crew.

    You must (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    not know much about Axelrod if you're desperately quoting him.

    Know plenty enough about Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    He isn't the biggest Clinton cheerleader but do you honestly think he would sabotage her?  He nailed the crux of the post-Comey political situation.

    And if you don't recognize his political acumen then the desperation is not on this side of the aisle.


    Naw (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:07:56 PM EST
    conservatives seem to desperately twisting themselves into pretzels today for unfortunately buying all the lies that conservative media and conservative leaders have been telling them.

    You must not realize that Axelrod is also wrong a lot. I just don't find him a very good political operative and I just find the fact that conservatives are attempting to hide behind him as funny and desperate.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    Ga6thDem: "You must not realize that Axelrod is also wrong a lot. I just don't find him a very good political operative and I just find the fact that conservatives are attempting to hide behind him as funny and desperate."

    The Labour Party in Britain wasted an awful lot of money during last year's elections when their leaders hired David Axelrod as a consultant / strategist. Labour got rolled, first by Axelrod and then by the Conservatives and the SNP. That guy's effort over there was worth the six figures they paid him, only if one moves the decimal point on the check two places to the left.



    Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    Has been polishing his CNN POLITICO cred for months on this issue.

    There is nothing suprising to anyone in tha insightful quote.

    The republicans will use criticism of Hillary as a weapon.

    No indictment lifts the "cloud"

    Wow Axelrod is a freakin savant.

    He's probably right about what "voters will consider".  Along with considering that Trump is flat out Batsh!t insane.  


    Exactly - why aren't we getting paid (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    the big bucks? Really took a political genius to come up with that.

    That will be Madame Sec's (none / 0) (#48)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    Along with considering that Trump is flat out Batsh!t insane.  

    Whole campaign

    And his will be she is inherently corrupt

    Pick your poison election, Sad state of American politics, theses are the 2 best candidates the parties could muster?


    That's you spin (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    It's not mine.  I'm happy and excited to vote for Hilkary.

    I think that places you... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    in a select minority my friend, nobody I know outside of my TL friends, be they left or right, is excited to vote for either of these two horses.  The opinion polls seem to confirm same, for what they are worth.

    I'm with Trevor...The Kentucky Derby of elections and the two favorites are nothing but 5 thousand dollar claimers.  That's sad.


    You know (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    there are a lot of Hillary supporters out there but they are constantly bullied over their support for Hillary. So they have remained quiet but they show up to vote. Many millions more than voted for either Trump or Bernie and you have to admit that voting is the most important thing.

    Nobody likes her except the people that matter: those who show up to actually vote.


    Voting is either the most (none / 0) (#201)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    important thing or a total waste of time, I can't quite make up my mind.  

    Says the guy who supported Marco Rubio. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    Whether you like / approve or not, both candidates won their respective party nominations at the ballot box. Democracy does not ensure that we get our way all the time, nor does our failure to get our way render the system inherently flawed or corrupt. If you don't like your choices, you have the right to sit this one out and stay home this November.

    Voters are free to weigh it in their decision (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    along with everything else, good and bad about all candidates.

    I think she had good reason to believe her email was at least as secure on her own server as on the government server. And classified data should not have been sent via email to either hers or any other unclassified server. Period. Her normal .gov email address is not on a classified server, so any classified data sent to or from there would have been equally in violation of the rules.

    By DoS guidelines and subsequent sh**storm, I can see why now she feels it was a mistake and would not do it the same way. I don't feel it disqualifies her from office.


    The Obama on the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    Trail with her endorsement rocks the afternoon. Homerun!

    What's the over/under (none / 0) (#31)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:31:24 PM EST
    on leaks from FBI agents about details embarrassing to Hillary that Comey did not mention?

    I was hoping (none / 0) (#38)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:41:24 PM EST
    That is why Comey covered so much, in detail.

    You are not suggesting more?  lol

    I don't believe there could be more, and not prosecute.

    Unless you are inferring there are specific embarrassing details that might be leaked.


    You can always hope (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    The Russians have something good.  That's supposed to be coming.

    I think they (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    are the one's feeding Wikileaks.

    But they will wait for the most opportune timing


    Hmmmmm? (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:47:51 PM EST

    Putin's Puppet

    If the Russian president could design a candidate to undermine American interests--and advance his own--he'd look a lot like Donald Trump.


    Too many forget that Putin (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:53:18 PM EST
    was raised during the cold war within the KGB and took avenging the USSR breakup as a personal vendetta.

    Both GWB and HRC have been duped in thinking they could work with him and/or hit the reset button.

    Putin is as dangerous as Stalin but with far more smarts and motivation globally.

    Romney was correct in identifying Putin as our biggest global threat.


    Putin's is neither as smart as Stalin (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:18:33 PM EST
    or as dangerous and ruthless as Stalin. Which doesn't mean Putin's isn't smart and ruthless.

    But you're right about the general trend of many of those whose formative years were spent during the Cold War in Russia and the U.S wanting to revive the Cold War. That much is obvious  


    I agree with everything you said (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:50:31 PM EST
    But a couple of things.  If he's really all that smart can he possibly want Trump to be president.  
    If he does he might not be as smart as he thinks he is.
    Also, if he thinks he will be able to insert himself into an American presidential election by something as lame as Hillarys email, well, he may not be as smart as he thinks he is.

    I can't imagine to many things that would work better for Hillary than being targeted by Putin.

    Finally.  An enigma inside a mystery inside a riddle.   Whatever his motivations are its hard for me to believe he would want Trump as president.  Whatever else she is to him Hillary is a known quantity and I don't think Trumos man crush would impress him.   Whatever he says.  

    That said, I fully believe he enjoys the US looking ridiculous by having Trump as a candidate.


    Yeah, I think Putin's just vindictive enough (none / 0) (#209)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    that he'd prefer a U.S president with the best chance of pulling us down the toilet hole and making us look ludicrous in the eyes of the rest of the world.

    But give Putin's credit: at least his motivation is conscious, unlike the right wing in this country who are willing to blindly sh*t on everything in order to have a momentary experience of personal and cultural vindication.


    Interesting email finding (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:38:42 PM EST
    This actually (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    proves what a lot of us have been saying for quite a while and that is that the GOP really want to sniff underwear again.

    Not sure you read the link (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 04:06:18 PM EST
    The case was related to a guy at Woods Hole who advised Obama about environmental/global warming issues and was using a private email server that contained government related work.

    This is not the first time professors studying global warming on the government's dime have refused to release data/analysis.  The UVA case involving Michael Mann is one high profile example.

    I am not sure what kinda dirty underware you think is related to global warming.  It is fairly standard for scientists to freely release their data and methodology if they expect their results to be accepted.

    Here is a good example of proof of global warming using underware.


    ... as an employee, as Dr. Michael Mann was when he worked at the University of Virginia, which is a public institution, then whatever work, findings or data you produce rightly belong to the agency or institution which employs you.

    That point was underscored last year when the University of California at San Diego prevailed over the University of Southern California in a high-profile lawsuit over the legal custody of a landmark Alzheimer's research project.

    UCSD filed suit after USC had successfully poached Dr. Paul Aisen, the renowned physician / biochemist who had long been conducting and overseeing that research project at UCSD. Dr. Aisen then sought to take his project with him, along with his entire research team, as USC had hoped and intended when they hired him away in April 2015.

    The good folks at UCSD thought otherwise, and charged both Dr. Aisen and USC with conspiracy, claiming breach of trust and unlawful interference in the binding contracts between UCSD and the National Institute on Aging, which had been funding the Alzheimer's study, among a host of things.

    The court subsequently found that the Alzheimer's project still belonged to UCSD, since it had initially applied for the federal grants which had heretofore been funding Dr. Aisen's research, and was still contractually obligated to fulfill the project's requirements per the grant contracts.

    San Diego Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes ordered USC and Dr. Aisen to immediately surrender project custody to UCSD, effectively ruling that while Dr. Aisen was free to work for USC, his project, his findings and any data derived therein actually belonged to his former employer, and not to him personally. Therefore, it could not follow him to USC.

    Now, on the other hand, if you're a research scientist at a university, and the work you're doing is funded in all or part by a federal grant, that methodology of funding does not necessarily give the federal government the right to then lay claim to your work product, unless both parties agree to that beforehand.

    The only requirement in most federal notices of funding availability for prospective grants is that your project must have clearly defined goals, objectives and benchmarks, and that you demonstrate how you intend to meet them over the life of the grant.

    If you are awarded a federal grant to pursue your project, unless there are specific provisions within the grant contract that was signed by both you and the agency representative, by which you agreed to share with the government your subsequent findings and results, you and your employer are under no obligation to do so.



    Sorry about my poor wording (none / 0) (#133)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:06:51 PM EST
    The Mann case was different than the Office of Science and Technology Policy case.  You are correct that the controlling legal authority would be any contract or grant Mann had.  The  FOIA request was made under the Virginia State laws.  

    The Office of Science and Technology Policy is a unit of the White House.  John Holdren was an Obama science adviser and used an account he kept on a server at the non-profit Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and a FOIA request was made for work related emails sent to and from that account under federal laws.

    The common element between Mann and Holdren were both global warming supporters.  Mann most likely won because federal FOIA laws are better, or worse depending on your point of view, that Virginia laws.


    Was John Holdren officially affiliated ... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 08:40:10 PM EST
    ... with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy? Was he being paid in this capacity? If he was on either count, he should have been given an email account under the White House domain, and should not have been conducting government business on a private, non-government account. Regardless, if that's the case, then I'd think that his government-related emails on the Woods Hole Center's server would be subject to FOIA.

    However, if his position was unofficial and his service was merely in an advisory capacity, that is, if he was someone whom President Obama consulted from time to time, then I'm hard-pressed to see why and how the public has the right to see his emails. Presidents (and vice presidents) do enjoy the right to consult with people in confidence. At the very least, I would've thought that principle was established by the 2005 SCOTUS opinion in Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dept. of Energy.



    FBI Director Comey (none / 0) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    reported the conclusion of the year-long investigation, attesting to its thoroughness, comprehensiveness and independence.  That conclusion is that no charges will be recommended to the DOJ.

     The additional commentary of the Director was, essentially, gratuitous. No evidence, or insufficient evidence exits as to a crime or to the reasonalbe pursuit thereof. As much as Republicans would like no evidence, or a lack of evidence, to be proof it is not.  And, no evidence of being hacked was determined, although the possibility exits. An assessment few would disagree with, no matter the server.

    The FBI is a law enforcement agency tasked, to investigate the referral.  It did so. It made its recommendation.

     Owing to this case, the Director felt it necessary to add not only the FBI's analysis in getting to its conclusion, but also, admonitions of individualized and departmentalized procedures.

     While it is not the role of the FBI to address departmental procedures or cultures, it did so, apparently, to discern its discovery of carelessness from a finding of intentional misdeeds.  

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    I really think the justice department needs to sit down and explain things simply because Comey appeared to not understand or something with all his jumping all over the place. Perhaps if Justice that actually deals with the law all the time put it in layman's terms for some of these people who seem to perpetually not understand what is going on.

    There is a back story here that will hopefully come out soon.


    I think the Director (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    did a decent job in attempting to educate as to the decision-making and decision-pathways taken to reach the investigative conclusion--no charges recommended.

     But, not only is this a complicated case, it is a politically charged one. And, as Mr. Comey tried to explain why considerations were raised, discounted and ruled out as a part of good investigative analysis, those who looked for a different conclusion see that no charges are definitely proof of guilt. But, these types will not be satisfied until they make Mrs. Clinton try on OJ's glove.  They just know it fits.

    The Clinton campaign needs to celebrate the conclusion, and, for the time being, ignore Comey's gratuitous comments.  Focus on the conclusion. The Republicans will just become more and more unhinged.


    ... that the Clinton Foundation's server "could have been hacked," as opposed to those servers belonging to federal agencies which had stricter security protocols in place. (And despite all those protocols, a number of those federal servers were nevertheless hacked anyway). Since we know that the Clinton servers were definitely not hacked, his comment was not grounded in fact, and was nothing more than personal supposition.

    He (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:56:58 PM EST
    did use some weasley words. Just as it's a "possibility" that Clinton's server was hacked, it's also a "possibility" that Comey's email is being read by bad actors as we speak, it's also a "possibility" that I hit the powerball tomorrow.

    I think he did a lot of opinionating.


    I think he did, too. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    And in that respect, such unnecessary personal speculation was inappropriate. But since this FBI inquiry was also a security referral, his reference to the potential for security breaches could be seen otherwise, so upon further consideration, I'm inclined to grant him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions here.

    It's now up to the State Dept. to draft and adopt clear and concise policies regarding departmental communications and archival / retention of agency work product, and to further provide the means for articulating those policies to current and prospective appointees and personnel alike, so as to ensure that no such grey areas and / or misunderstandings exist in the future.

    One can't simply assume that people are going to be aware of agency protocols, without ever being told what they are. And given my present understanding of this case, I think that may be what happened here.

    For whatever reason, and per last month's State Dept. IG report, the staff in the department's Bureau of Administration showed an obvious reluctance to inform then-incoming Secretary Clinton and her team of those protocols, and as a result, she and her team did their own thing, as did her predecessors. And even when there was some question later on amongst senior civil service staff as to the appropriateness of her communications via a Blackberry, it doesn't appear that anyone ever approached her directly with those concerns.

    Now, should Sec. Clinton have inquired herself as to what those agency protocols were? Given her position at the top of her department's food chain, and in obvious retrospect, yes. In that regard, she did not show good judgment, and she's already and forthrightly admitted to that.

    But otherwise, it really should've been the responsibility of the State Dept. Bureau of Administration itself to inform her upon her appointment and confirmation as to what its own departmental protocols were, and not left for her or her personal assistants / advisors to figure that out on their own. Because as the evidence shows, none of them likely gave it much if any real thought.



    I'm hoping that (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 03:10:51 PM EST
    after a few days we won't hear about email anymore. If the underlings at the FBI and the wingnuts want to take down Comey they can do that. Speaking for myself only I am to the point of being stupidly tired of this whole subject.

    Speaker Ryan and his GOP malcontents ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 03:45:06 AM EST
    ... are reminding me of Monty Python's Black Knight.

    what to make of Comey's statement (none / 0) (#108)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:38:47 PM EST
    that Sec. Clinton used more than one mobile device, when she said she used only one, for convenience?

    or Comey's statement that 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains found on Sec. Clinton's private server(s) contained classified information at the time they were sent or received, when Sec. Clinton said that no e-mails on her server contained classified information at the time they were sent or received?

    it's almost as if he didn't take care to get the facts straight

    surprising, after such a long & thoroughgoing investigation

    Lol (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 05, 2016 at 05:51:11 PM EST

    FBI Director James Comey's announcement Tuesday that he will not refer criminal charges to the Justice Department against Clinton spared her from prosecution and a devastating political predicament. But it left much of her account in tatters and may have aggravated questions of trust swirling around her Democratic presidential candidacy.

    A look at Clinton's claims since questions about her email practices as secretary of state surfaced and how they compare with facts established


    Addams Family: As Donald suggested.... (none / 0) (#210)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    The classification protocols at state and throughout the government do need some explaining.  In short, what I discovered in that maze is that the application of the various protocols are not static ... that may be at the core of that aspect of the FBI's security review finding careless or lax behavior previously by the SOS and in the overall environment of State.

    Of course, the most important and consequential finding, imo, is the Director's conclusion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would press charges in such a matter.  Also in my opinion: The commentary about careless behavior in the whole atmosphere of State (and, implicitly, it's protocol application & compliance aspects) really reflects the classification practice/standard of the intelligence communities ... an approach that typically is more strict or rigid than other department & agency components.  As FBI Director, Comey naturally reflects adherence to the highest classification standards along with the various IGs, the CIA, and the military.  

    Without getting into another longstanding tension between & among executive branch components--other than to note my memory of a not unusual IG rebuke my own agency would receive in systematic reviews for not paying enough attention to maintaining records, classification, etc.--I can say that Donald's statement about the role that programs for systematic education about such protocols & expectations, especially for the higher level responsible officials, would be helpful.  While the division or branch having responsibility for records maintenance clearly should be proactive in briefing all new leaders ASAP, my guess is that process can be a bit erratic ... ultimately, tho, as Comey stressed not just about the former SOS, it the overall responsibility of the leader.

    In looking again at his words. the commentary about record maintenance protocol sends a broader message to all components of federal government about his approach to classification issues for their reflection & future reference.  Perhaps, for future reference, the whole matter of what is presumed "confidential" "secret" etc., and all that means will eventually need resolution at the desk of the highest authority in the executive branch. For now, Comey has assertively set the presumption.

    Side note: While I personally find his sermon about carelessness a bit preachy, I also understand that the parent-like scolding satisfies a number of political needs.  In that regard, it is likely that the House Repubs,  by reportedly summoning Comey already for explanatory testimony about his decision, may find that Comey has insulated his no-charges decision from their expected attack by the method & substance of yesterday's delivery. This overstep in appearing to attack the FBI and its Director may be a bridge too far for most people ...yet again.


    Over a (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 06:39:36 AM EST
    year of erroneous reporting on this here

    Emergency (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 08:29:51 AM EST
    Fainting couches and clutching pearls have been deployed to the Morning Joe staff.

    It's great.  Rather try's to insert a bit of sanity and literally gets shouted down.  Didn't get a word out.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 08:30:53 AM EST
    RATNER not Rather

    I read (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 08:42:25 AM EST
    about that and after telling their viewers for a long time now that Hillary was going to be indicted instead of admitting they were wrong they are now going after Comey. This seems to be the general GOP plan to go after Comey.

    I think it was the national review that was even accusing the FBI of changing the rules so that they couldn't indict Hillary.

    I for one am enjoying the meltdowns and exploding heads over this one.


    Ari Melber (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 08:49:38 AM EST
    Is now trying to explain to Squint and the Meat Puppet (who is barely conscious and being held upright by a stage hand) what we tried to explain here yesterday.  With even less success. But he is not allowing Squint to shout him down like Ratner did.

    Steve Ratner left after the first segment.  This is awsum.


    LOL (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 08:53:54 AM EST

    Just when (none / 0) (#179)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:16:45 AM EST
    Is Madame Sec going to speak to reporters and the American public.
    About why she lied to the press and the American public.
    Or, does she figure if she doesn't talk to the press, and talk to the American people, that this will all go away?
    Sad, a very sad state of affairs

    Sad for you (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    Sad for Squint and especially the Meat Puppet, sad for Andrea Mitchell and Mark Halperin.

    Sad for us?  Nah.  Not so much really.

    In fact the only tv show this year I enjoyed more than today's Morning Joe would the GoT finale.


    Clinton is Arya.. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    and the rw noise machine is Fray..

    You (none / 0) (#181)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:30:10 AM EST
    Do not want to know why Mad Sec lied to you?

    Over the course of the last year?

    Yes, that is sad. Lemmings anyone?


    Maybe (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    when you care to admit that the GOP has been lying to you about Benghazi for years now?

    PS Hillary told the truth. She said she wasn't going to be indicted and she wasn't.

    Sorry but your attempts have failed twice in one week Trevor. Is that a record? I don't know. Bend over and take your punishment since your pants have been pulled down for all to see.


    Why is it not a surprise (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:39:15 AM EST
    That you use an entirely debunked myth of natural behavior to try to make some lame and ludicrous point.  

    You don't know anything about Lemmings and you know even less about politics.   If anyone is charging over a cliff it's republicans but I will not use a laughable urban myth to make the point.   It's just republicans charging over a cliff.


    From the guy who considers (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    "the award winning Climate Depot"  an unimpeachable source for the latest cutting edge information on climate science..

    No sad for America. (none / 0) (#211)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    Maybe sad for Director Comey, who, as a Republican, should know that you can never throw enough red meat to the wingnuts. Mr. Comey presented the FBI's conclusive recommendation of its year-long investigation that no charges be filed. Moreover, he stated that only an irresponsible prosecutor would do anything different

    . His deputies determined that Mrs. Clinton was truthful and forthcoming in the interview last Saturday. As apparently all of Mrs. Clinton's staff have been, save for one who obtained limited immunity, based on his own attorney's recommendation. A reasonable conclusion given that no claims of compromise of programs or operations were made by Comey, nor was there as much as a hint of obstruction.  

    Following his legal conclusions, he attempted to provide details of the investigation and educate as to the investigative procedure--which he seemed proud of in its independence and thoroughness. But, in so doing, he crossed from the legal, where he was on solid ground, to the soggy marshes of political opinion. His admonishments served only to inflame the Republicans, equating his explanations and labeling of extreme carelessness as proof of wrongdoing and rigging by Trump, a term adopted from Sanders.

    Mrs. Clinton is at a disadvantage for the moment, in that the case is not officially closed, although Miss Lynch said she would accept the FBI recommendation, whatever that was.

     And, no opportunity has been given to refute or clarify, correct, or interpret the details presented by the investigators.  But, good legal advice, at this point, would be cite the recommendation and go no further.

     The issue of her assertion that she did not send or receive emails marked classified at the time, it would seem, will be addressed in due time.  Clearly, it was not a lie as determined by the FBI. It is not difficult to find other explanations given the 60,000 emails that passed through or the moving target of government classifications.  


    When (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:34:27 AM EST
    is the GOP going to hold a press conference admitting that they have spent the last few years lying to the public about Benghazi? When is the GOP going to have a press conference admitting they have been lying to the public about Hillary's email?

    Hillary will surely be asked and she will have an answer.

    Like Howdy I don't feel one bit sorry for the GOP. They created a monster and now the monster is going to eat them up. You nor any Republicans care about anything other than attempting to take Hillary down. You failed twice and twice you were caught with your pants down. Bend over and take your punishment Trevor.


    Ouch! (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    That said, an image I do not thank you for.

    Back to MJ.  Who could have imagined that Chuck Todd would be the voice of reason.  He appeared at the 90 minute mark, after they have spent 90 minutes trashing Comey, and says "what's wrong with you people?  SERIOUSLY.  What's wrong with republicans?  Why are you trashing Comey?  Thats insane?  You all should be QUOTING Comey?"

    Leading to thoughtful and confused looks around the table and a cut to commercial.

    That's when I stopped.  I draw the line at listening to Rudy Guliani.


    Yes, over (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    the top image Lol. Too bad that seems to be the only thing that gets through to the wingnut welfare recipients.

    I understand Todd but once you've gotten on the indictment bandwagon words like careless just seem trivial. And in reality it does. It's like they just don't have any choice but to go after Comey because to not would be having to admit they have been lying about this email thing the entire time.


    So ... as I previously perversely joked (none / 0) (#212)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    to my husband: My, my ... maybe the "tarmac incident" was a blessing-in-disguise since its logical outcome had to be shifting the focus from a nice Repub target in the AG to the stalwart, highly respected FBI Director Comey :)  

    In the political theatre co come--which is what the predictable (?) attack on Director Comey will become--there is another predictable outcome for the Repubs. Should the Repubs pursue their assault, Comey will ... well, said as politely as can be said here, Comey will chew them up & spit them out for all to see.  And, then, they will shut-up .. until the next time.