Compliant Comey exonerates Hillary

George Rebane

This morning we heard FBI Director James Comey announce that the bureau’s exhaustive investigation found no reason to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton regarding the goings on with her private email servers when she was Secretary of State.

His conclusion was based on two factors –

1. Lack of intent to harm the country. “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,”

2. Assessing the success of a subsequent prosecution were she indicted; to wit, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Anyone who has ever held high security clearances with the responsibility to safeguard classified materials, and also the responsibility to classify previously unclassified materials knows that intent to violate the laws governing such handlings makes no exception for the perpetrator’s intentions.  (cf Federal Penal Code, Title 18, Sec 794(f)(g) ) It is the existential behaviors and their portent for harm that determine guilt or innocence.  Without doubt Hillary’s position as SecState assigned her those responsibilities, apparently without having to be accountable for failing to carry them out.  When I was in government service, holding such high clearances in and out of the military, any careless, let alone “extremely careless”, handling of classified materials would have instantly resulted in the loss of my clearances and a criminal indictment.  Were this to have happened while I was on active duty, I would have spent my life in Leavenworth no matter what my intentions had been.

And when did it become a material factor for a criminal investigative agency to base its findings on its own apprehension of what every one of the population of the country’s “reasonable prosecutors” would do were the conclusion to recommend indictment?  In this case that decision is specifically reserved for the DoJ of which AG Lynch in her recent half-hearted retreat still retained her right to make the final decision to indict or not.  Comey’s precipitous conclusion and rationale relieved Team Obama of having to bear the corruption-laden political brunt of exonerating Hillary.  Comey conveniently chose to fall on that sword himself.

According to my lights it is beyond ludicrous to conclude that “no reasonable prosecutor” could be found to prosecute Hillary based just on the evidence that has been released to, and surreptitiously withheld from, the public.  The most likely case is that there would be tens of reasonable prosecutors across the country who would step up to make the case that Hillary is guilty of a long list of serious infractions that include impeding the investigation.

Finally, we are being asked to believe that the sequence of recent events had no impact on the investigation’s outcome and its timely announcement this morning.  We are asked to believe that all parties and departments for the first time in federal government history behaved with solid insularity between jurisdictions, with hundreds of agents, bureaucrats, and officials remaining mum about their individual goings on.

Exit questions: How would Hillary’s announced trip with President Obama on Air Force One to campaign in North Carolina have had to be handled if Comey had recommended indictment?  Without certain knowledge of Comey’s compliance as a team player, who would have had the meetings, scheduled the events, and made the public statements we have witnessed in the last week?  Is it really over?

Comments

[fish]

"Toward the end of the hearing, Comey would not answer directly when asked whether the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation. He also said Clinton gave individuals who were not cleared access to classified material – though a campaign spokesman countered that the attorneys who sorted through the emails had “Top Secret-level clearance"

Hold yer horses!!! Those were the "attorneys" who shredded the e-mails like Cheryl Mills and other aides who had top clearance? AVOIDANCE: the e-mails were sent to folks without clearance.....not just to the shredders. Nice try.

Chaffetz: "Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?"

Comey: "Yes."

[Bill Tozer]

Mr. jon smith way way back on July 6th, 9:36 am.

What did the boy who did your yard work do (accused of) to get a 100k bail??? You don't see that everyday in our white county. Look, this guy is being held on a 27k bond and he did plenty. Just saying. 7 months in the hooskal is enough time to become institionalized. Common story. Are you saying his bail is just too damned high?

http://www.theunion.com/news/22820801-113/washington-incident-ends-in-arrest

[Paul Emery]

George
Your conspiracy theory is too neat and tidy to be the likely scenario. Are you actually accusing Comey of consciously planning with Obama, Lynch and various Clintons to pull this off?

I think it's more likely a case of Comey knowing the right thing to do. It's also likely that he believes that he made the right decision.

The "no criminal intent" angle is used all the time by prosecuters. I took the Grass Valley School District Board of Directors to the Grand Jury and Nevada County D.A. for intentional violations of the Brown Act in 1993 and they ruled in my favor but found "no criminal intent" in their actions even though they consciously made decisions based on outside the board room communications. So in that case they conspired to violate the Brown Act. Might I add that conspiring to commit a misdemeanor is a felony.

The "correction" offered by the Grand Jury was to put on the agenda all the items that were decided in private communications and approve them on the consent calendar of the next Board Meeting which is what they did in one swift boom whap of the gavel.

By that time the damage was done. I'll share the details if anyone wants to hear them. By the way one of the Board members was good ole Sam Aanastead before he became an Assemblyman and later a State Senator.

[Paul Emery]

The "right thing to do" refers to of course the right thing politically not necessarily but possibly the right thing legally .

[fish]

Yep....no criminal intent.....not a bit......not even a little drop of criminal intent.....this "criminal intent" of which you speak......they've been unable to find even a scintilla.

"Dear God, Comey admits under oath her attorneys scrubbed devices in a way to prevent forensic recovery.. Astounding"

So what was that you were saying........oh yes....the School Board.

https://twitter.com/redsteeze?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/07/comey-why-no-we-didnt-put-hillary-under-oath-for-our-interview-or-record-what-she-said/

[Paul Emery]

What aI'm saying Fish is the "no criminal intent" defense has been used locally and I cite a personal experience to back up my claim.

[Todd Juvinall]

hen she put in the server she had "original intent" to deceive the people. All the rest flows from that.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 231pm - Conspiracy theories are not disqualified on the basis of their being "neat and tidy", it takes a bit more. And yes, the presented conspiracy theory definitely states that Comey and Lynch both were in the tank with Obama and Hillary for pro quid quo yet to be seen. Comey's reputation is now dead with most of the country, and on life support with the remaining hardened leftwingers who have to keep up a good front for Hillary.

Occam's Razor has served well in many other endeavors than just science, and it is doubly applicable in the present case for which many more convoluted conspiracy theories can be concocted.

Given what has passed since the FBI recommendation and DoJ ruling, Comey's belief that "he did the right thing" is no longer a material factor in this discussion. He's a smart man who sold his soul, and hopes that the agreed on payoff will assuage all regrets.

BTW, the conspiracy theory thread belongs under 'The Day Justice Died' and my comment is cross-posted there.

[Gregory]

Paul, "no criminal intent" is a perfect defense for crimes that require criminal intent.

The ones that Comey were clear on Ms. Clinton having violated DID NOT REQUIRE criminal intent, only gross negligence in handling classified material, and, contrary to her multiple claims, she sent 110 classified emails that range from Top Secret (which would probably include the classifications above Top Secret) down to Confidential. Comey decided she was guilty only of "extreme carelessness" which differs only that it is the wrong word for pretty much the same thing.

It's clear people not named Clinton have been found guilty of the same thing and given severe penalties.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2016 at 02:58 PM

Despite all the deliberate "water muddying" going on there is a clear pattern of criminal intent and that your attempt to draw a comparison between what the presumptive nominee was involved with and your interaction with the school board is disingenuous at best.

[Paul Emery]

So can anybody share with me the motive for what you allege is Hillary reason for breaking the law.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 07 July 2016 at 02:58 PM

One would assume personal gain...both in power and money.....there is a wealth of material out there explain what the likely motive was as well as the mechanism.

[Todd Juvinall]

Power and money and secrecy, AK paranoia. As well as to keep those emails from FOIA. As a journalist I would think you would be outraged and filing a foiz yourself.

[Bill Tozer]

Paul, may I throw my two cents worth in? Thanks.
Intent: she set up a private server, and removed documents out of confines of the State Depart. When caught, she destroyed....what....maybe 30-60K docs....the same doc's she is required to turn in on the last day of office, along with any laptops or devises used to connect State Business.
She was hiding her plan from day one. When caught, she destroyed evidence, lied all along the way, and went to great lengths to cover up. Intent? There is your criminal intent.
Congress passed the gross negilance bill with extra teeth, A US President signed it into law, and the gross negilance part was tossed in the shedder......G-Man said he....well, face it,...he was told that DOJ lawyers didn't want to touch a case like that.....what was that line the G-Man said.....oh yeah, something about his comminications with DOJ top dogs and "great concern at Justice concerning this case" or something.
From his ear to out of his mouth.
This has Loretta love is the answer Lynch's fingerprints all over it. They all took a big sigh of relief after the powwow in the Arizona desert. Had enough time to pass around the peace pipe. Always a silver lining.

[Bill Tozer]

Motive? You don't know the Clintons even at a passing glance, do ya?

[Paul Emery]

I do know the Clintons. Didn't Bubba redefine what sex is?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

[Bill Tozer]

Motive? A sociopath motive is always the same in the end, but at least she feels great about herself and has no remorse to boot.

[Jon Dozer]

Meanwhile the other 90% of the nation is following the latest, and continuing racist saga, of cops murdering black men in America.
Hate the break this to you boys, but the majority of the electorate is over Hillary's sloppiness.

[fish]

Meanwhile the other 90% of the nation is following the latest, and continuing racist saga, of cops murdering black men in America.

That's an excellent point.....and from the always valuable "Instapundit".

"WHY ARE DEMOCRAT-RUN CITIES SUCH CESSPITS OF OFFICIAL RACISM AND VIOLENCE? Philando Castile Shooting Fits a Pattern of Violence Toward Blacks, Governor Says."

I'm sure on this we can all agree...eh jeffy....err....um....jon dozer!

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

[Jon Dozer]

Yet another reason why many think Drumpf doesn't really want to be President, and why Drumpf will lose the election.
Instead of taking advantage of a political pawn move, he's spent the day lashing out in his uber-sensitive way at Senators with a conscience.
A real class psychopath.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html

[Todd Juvinall]

"jon" is all in for the political DC crowd. No creds here jonnie boy. And Hillaries troubles are just beginning. She is in deep trouble. 90$% of the electorate don't trust her and Trump will be gaining support every day at her expense.

[Bill Tozer]

@ 7:26
Trump again? Not on this tread. Take it to the Sandbox, Colon Cowboy. Let's defend Your Gal, shall we? I am all ears.
. Just cause you took one small step away from her doesn't mean you still ain't yoked to her. Shoot, I need to make a double seater finely crafted stock your you and your gal. Shucks, just when I almost got the finishing touches on your stocks and the permit for the public square. The topic is Hillary and another (of a long list) of Hillarygates. Oh, you can mention the FBI or rejoice in another closed case.

PS: did enjoy the last Trump rumor. About Trump's son-in-law's uncle who was a Jew killing Nazi or something.....come to find out he was fleeing the Krauts in the woods running with the Jews at his side taking them to safety. Keep trying, Charlie Brown, and quit pooping in the halls.
Take it to the Sandbox, psycho.