“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

FBI Director James Comey spent ten minutes detailing every law Clinton broke -- then recommended against indictment. We get it


In a Rigged System, Hillary Clinton Is Too Big to Indict

   President Barack Obama appeared at a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Charlotte, N.C., on Tuesday, after FBI Director James Comey’s announcement. (Chuck Burton / AP)
The long-roiling question finally has been answered: Hillary Clinton will not be indicted for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Period. Full stop. 

Pause a moment, and let it sink in.

FBI Director James Comey delivered the word in a surprise news conferenceTuesday morning, exactly three days after Clinton’s 3½-hour interview Saturday at the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C.

There was plenty of evidence that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and her staff had been “extremely careless” in their handling of classified and sensitive information, Comey said, but not enough to prove they had acted with the criminal intent or willfulness needed to secure a conviction. “No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” he concluded.

While the FBI’s evaluation technically is not binding on the Justice Department, any indictment is now clearly off the table. Last week, following her embarrassing and ethically suspect encounter with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport, Attorney General Loretta Lynch publicly pledged to follow the bureau’s lead. And the bureau, via Comey, has spoken.

Reaction to his announcement has been swift and predictable, with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., expressing shock and dismay that the “rule of law” has been “damaged,” and the Clinton campaign voicing relief “that the matter is now resolved.” Taking to Twitter, Clinton’s Republican presidential rival, Donald Trump, blasted Comey’s analysis as further proof that “the system is rigged.”

I have been following the Clinton email scandal in this column for several months and have long predicted that she would escape prosecution. Now that the official decision is in, I find myself, regrettably, in agreement with Ryan and Trump.
The system is rigged. Like the Wall Street banks that were bailed out after running the nation’s economy off a cliff just a few years ago because they were too big to fail, Clinton and the power elite of which she is an integral part are too big to indict.

This isn’t to say that Comey or any of the career prosecutors in the Justice Department assigned to the investigation are in the tank. White-collar crimes are often tangled webs, tedious to investigate and hard to litigate. Clinton’s email machinations are no exception.

As Comey noted in his news conference, the email investigation focused on two federal criminal statutes. They are Sections 1924 and 793 of Title 18 of the United States Code. They deal, respectively, with the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, and the improper gathering, transmission or loss of information relating to the national defense.

A conviction of Clinton under the first statute, a misdemeanor, would require proof that she actually knew she was keeping classified information on her server. The second, a felony carrying a potential 10-year prison sentence, would require a showing of either knowledge or gross negligence (essentially, the equivalent of recklessness). The elements of both offenses would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in our legal system.

In part, Comey explained, the recommendation against prosecution was made because an indictment would have taken investigators into uncharted legal waters. “All the cases prosecuted [under these laws],” he explained, alluding to but not naming former CIA Director David Petraeus and ex-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, “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.”

Reasonable minds, as they say in law school lectures nearly every day across the country, can differ. But is a criminal case against Clinton actually so weak that, to quote Comey again, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring” it?

As Comey revealed, Clinton used not one, but “several” email servers at her New York home during her tenure at the State Department from January 2009 to February 2013, 
“decommissioning” and replacing one after another. More importantly, he also revealed that the servers contained no less than 110 emails that included information that was classified at the time the emails were received and stored. Of these, eight email chains contained information that was “top secret.”
Page 2 of 2

Comey’s announcement came on the heels of an 83-page report issued by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General (IG). Released on May 26, the IG’s report delivered a stinging rebuke of Clinton, finding that she had committed a bounty of administrative derelictions.

Among her many missteps, according to the IG, Clinton never obtained department approval for using personal email, much less a BlackBerry mobile phone or a private server, to transact official business. Such practices, in fact, contravened a departmental policy adopted in 2005, advising employees to conduct day-to-day operations on an authorized automation system. The claim that her email usage was “permitted” during her term at the State Department is still published on Clinton’s official website. It is at best artful and misleading.

The IG also found that Clinton continued to use the server without seeking technical assistance from the department’s Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) to guard against leaks and hacking, even though two IRM staffers raised security misgivings about the server in 2010, and the server was briefly shut down in 2011 out of concerns that an unknown third party was attempting to break into it.

Clinton’s oft-cited defense that her predecessors at the State Department also utilized personal email is similarly misleading. While Colin Powell conducted official business via a private email account, as did certain aides to Condoleezza Rice, the installation of a private server was unprecedented.

The IG further faulted Clinton for waiting until December 2014, 21 months after leaving office, to turn over some 30,000 emails to the department. Under the provisions of the Federal Records Act, even before it was amended and tightened in 2014, Clinton was required to submit all work-related documents immediately upon her departure as secretary.

Neither the IG nor Comey, however, commented directly on the propriety of Clinton’s unilateral decision to delete some 31,000 email messages from her server that she deemed were purely personal. Was other classified and top secret material contained in files that have been permanently erased? We’re unlikely to know now.

The decision not to prosecute, however, will not end the email controversy, not by a long shot.

The leniency shown to Clinton stands in stark contrast to the harsh sentences meted out to whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning and former CIA analyst John Kiriakou for their alleged mishandling of classified material.

As a result, we can expect the cries of double standards, political influence and corruption to persist and redouble as we head for the November election. At the same time, the increasingly proto-fascist Trump campaign will be fortified with a fresh set of inexhaustible talking points.

Most disastrous of all, the race for the White House, which should be a cakewalk for the Democrats, will go down to the wire because the party has chosen as its leader a candidate driven by blind ambition, with an appalling disregard for accountability and transparency, who, when push came to shove, was too big to bring to the bar of justice.

89 comments:

  1. Actually, Comey - a lifelong Republican - rattled on, probably illegally, with unsubstantiated smears and innuendo, against a citizen who must be considered, due to his own inaction, INNOCENT.

    This rant was in all ways unethical, and quite probably illegal.

    The job of the FBI is to investigate crimes, and arrest citizens suspected of committing them. It is Not the Agency's job to defame innocent citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Wednesday confirmed that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state will be closed without criminal charges.

      The announcement brings to a formal end a probe that for months dogged the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign, though it is not particularly surprising.

      On Tuesday, FBI Director James B. Comey had said “no reasonable prosecutor” would make a criminal case against Clinton or her staffers, even though investigators found “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.” That effectively ended any hopes Clinton’s opponents might have had for an indictment, though Comey said final authority technically rested with the Justice Department.

      The Justice Department announced its decision in a brief statement from Lynch.

      “Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation,” the attorney general said.

      Washington Post

      Delete
  2. .

    So do you think Loretta Lynch will try to indict him? Or, do you think she will offer to buy him a drink?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Compare this to the recent British Chilcot report on the Iraq war and you get a picture of the two sets of Justice, one for the 99% and quite another for the ruling class.

    ReplyDelete
  4. She ought to indict the son of a bitch; get this:

    The case against Clinton just got weaker. This afternoon State Department spokesman John Kirby said that the only two e-mails that had a classified marking on them prior to being sent (doesn’t say if it is to or from Clinton) were “call sheets” that were only classified as some sort of internal process:

    The State Department says human error was responsible for a pair of Hillary Clinton emails the FBI identified as marked classified when they were sent.

    Describing a somewhat opaque internal process, spokesman John Kirby says officials often mark "call sheets" at the confidential level when the secretary of state is considering whom he or she will call. Once the secretary decides to make the call, the call sheets would be no longer classified.

    Kirby says the markings on the Clinton emails mentioned by FBI Director James Comey "were no longer necessary or appropriate" as Clinton already had decided to make the calls.

    One of the key elements to this story (that she knowingly sent marked classified materials) painting Clinton in a harsh light has been destroyed. If they were call sheets that she had seen hundreds of times and had no obvious National Security value (i.e. by her picking up the phone and calling people on said list they declassified themselves), then who can blame her for not treating them as nuclear codes.

    That weaselly asshole knew that; it just grated his ass that he couldn't find wrong-doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are hilarious.

      Have your Meds changed from 10 years ago?

      Delete
    2. Kirby said what the State Dept knows is there were 2 (two!) emails with Hillary’s own telephone call schedules in them. The call schedules are marked confidential until Hillary decides to make the phone calls, and then they aren’t confidential anymore, but some staffer forgot to remove the confidential marking, so the marking was just human error.

      So all this screaming about Hillary lied is about 2 emails that weren’t confidential but were marked confidential in error. And they were all about her own phone schedule anyway.

      So Comey raises suspicions about nothing and Congress wants to have hearings about it, outrageous!

      John Kirby responds to emails

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the entertainment.

      To the rest of you:

      Remember it's bad form to make fun of crazy people.

      Delete
  5. CNN Makes a Two Minute Ad for Trump:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton-decision/?iid=ob_lockedrail_topeditorial

    ReplyDelete
  6. In my limited understanding of criminal law forming criminal intent is a key factor. I believe the stated reason for dismissed was the inability for them to establish criminal intent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Intent is not required here, Ash. Only gross negligence, reckless disregard, that sort of thing.

      If she were to be charged with, say, treason, intent is probably required.

      Comey got it all fucked up, looks like on purpose.

      Our country is fucked up now.

      And it should have gone to a grand jury.

      Delete
  7. She broke the rules for handling emails.
    ===
    A man intends to get drunk and does.
    He then drives without the intent to kill but does.
    The victim remains dead.

    Hillary intended to set up the server.
    (Intent upon non-transparency.)
    There are rules against doing so having nothing to do with intent,
    only how classified information must be handled.

    She broke those rules, but Comey cited another rule.
    ===
    "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,”
    ---
    It depends on the meaning of
    "markings" "presence" "classified" and "information"
    ===
    "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whether it was criminal or not is irrelevant. She has disqualified herself for handling classified information:

    (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:
    Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.
    116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:

    Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.
    117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:

    Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...HOW WAS A SIMILAR CASE HANDLED?
      118. (U/ /FOUO) In November 1996, a senior CIA official was determined to have routinely authored CIA unique, classified documents on his personal home computer and CIA-issued laptop computer configured for unclassified use. Some of the documents were at the Secret and Top Secret/Codeword level. In addition, the senior Agency official had used both computers to visit Internet sites. In addition, the senior official's family members had access to both computers. However, there was no way to determine if the computer hard drives had been compromised.

      Delete
    2. IOW, anyone else with her record would be denied a security clearance.

      ...but in RufusWorld, deleting half her emails was just business as usual.

      Hillary insists they were all personal.

      She should know.

      Delete
  9. There was no "dismissal," because there were no charges.

    There were No Charges, because there was No Wrongdoing.

    One of Comey's "Top Secret" strings was Sidney Blumenthal referencing a New York Times article from the previous day.

    The NY Times article was about Drones. (Drones are a "Top Secret" program.) So, ipso facto, the article that had been read, literally, Around the mother fucking world, could not be discussed.

    Does your head hurt yet? Mine is about to fucking explode. Comey is just another right wing asshole facing the worst of all possible worlds - one in which he will soon be calling Hillary Clinton

    "BOSS!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation

      Delete
    2. Emailing Sidney Blumenthal was breaking the rules: Sid had no clearance, and Obama did not want him to be in the Administration.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Frankly, I think that Comey knew that the so-called Dept of Justice was not going to do anything and laid out the entire case against her.

    He took the opportunity to rebuke her and then covered his ass and said he was not recommending prosecution.

    The fix was in and he knew it. It would be a clever way to get the air time and set her up for the politics.

    It is Trump’s golden opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. If Comey laid out the "Entire Case", then there was no case.
      Not one that could be prosecuted and end in a conviction.

      If Hillery had been indicted, by the GOP led FBI and then found not guilty ...
      The FBI would have decided the Presidential election, by falsely indicting the Dem candidate, with a case full of smoke and mirrors ....

      A much worse scenario than letting the voters decide.

      Delete
    2. .

      a case full of smoke and mirrors ....

      Decisions made by political appointees.

      However, if you get down to the career technocrat level like the State Department AG you get a different story.

      Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated federal records rules through her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, a State Department audit has concluded.

      "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service," says an audit by the State Department Inspector General, obtained by NBC News.

      "Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."


      http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

      The report was issued over a year ago. Did Comey take the State Department Audit into account? One wonders.

      .

      Delete

    3. Did Comey take the State Department Audit into account?

      It matters not.

      Without resignations from the FBI, there is not going to be any movement away from Hillary.

      That is what the anti-Hillary hardliners promised, and they cannot deliver.
      There is nothing there, not that matters, criminally.

      The voters will be given an opportunity to be the jury, come November.
      In the majority of the States the Electoral College votes will be for "Not Guilty".

      Delete

  12. No Indictment, No Resignations, No News.

    The popular vote is irrelevant.
    Clinton wins the Electoral College vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CA, New York, Florida and change.

      Delete

    2. Without Florida, Trump cannot win the White House.
      Clinton about a 2-point edge in Florida, a 3-point edge in Ohio and a 4-point edge in Pennsylvania.

      Delete
  13. .

    Despite scandals in every department I am aware of from the IRS to Homeland Security to small little shit offices I can't remember the names of there has never been anyone punished or indicted within the Obama administration.

    Some here would say that makes the Obama administration the most ethical administration in their life time.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Did Comey take the State Department Audit into account? One wonders."

      He knew any prosecution would be tanked, so he did the best he could to get the truth to the voters.

      Half the voters don't give a damn.

      Delete
  14. I POSTED A VIDEO ABOVE - IN THEIR OWN WORDS

    ReplyDelete
  15. With Clinton’s infraction and without her name, she could not get a security clearannce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the President cannot be frozen out of the intelligence stream, can she.

      Delete
  16. .

    If Clinton isn't guilty of criminal acts them she is at least too stupid for the office of President since despite her many years in government she still hasn't mastered knowledge of government rules and regulations such as records retention and FOIA. Is she a crook or just incompetent?

    Take your choice.

    .

    .

    ReplyDelete
  17. Electoral College Vote;

    Trump 280
    Clinton 258

    D&B Analysts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida et al.

      Doug and Bob Analysts.

      1 vote from Maine.

      You don't keep up with the inside breaking news.

      Scroll back a few days when the two experts talked the situation over for the link.

      Delete

    2. The two class clowns, you mean, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      Delete
  18. Robert, all those posts you made promising mass resignations at the FBI if Hillary was not indicted ...

    What happened?

    Were those pundits lying, or did the just assume their readers were all as stupid as you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. Were those pundits lying, or did they just assume their readers were all as stupid as you?

      Delete
    2. They all turned out to be turds.

      What else to say ?

      Delete
    3. Jack has bragged to us about the crimes he committed and doesn't fear being convicted of, let alone arrested or indicted for...

      I guess Rat/Jack is correct, the guilty walk in this nation of lawlessness.

      Delete
  19. Well, Comey turned out to be a turd.

    What else to say ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Comey remains a man of integrity, this is evidenced by the FACT that no other FBI agents or administrators walked.

      Not a one.

      There is no mass rejection of the decision among the rank and file of the FBI.
      Is the entire FBI corrupt, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson?

      Delete
    2. You spoke of the corruption yourself Jack "I had a confidential source at the AZ FBI" Hawkins.

      I guess the FBI is tainted.

      Delete
    3. Their jobs seem unduly important to them, DEAD BEAT DAD AND SELF CONFESSED KILLER.

      Now, how about quit stalking me, and get back to work on your super secret project with CIA, NSA, Defense, off the coasts of Panama designed to keep us all safe. dog shit eater ?

      The boys can't get along without your management skills.

      It is your duty.

      Delete
  20. "Hillary Clinton Isn’t Getting Indicted. Here’s Why."

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. The voters will get to decide, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, that is the jury.

      Of course you bemoan the voters getting to decide ...

      “The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies.”
      ― John Lescroart

      Delete
    2. Lescroart is onto something, though he's really talking about totalitarianism not fascism.

      Not that you'd know the difference.

      Voters may well be idiots, like you.

      However voters have the ability to rectify their mistakes.

      So it's basically the best form of government, especially when compared to all the others, as Churchill once observed.

      Now, how about quit with the staling, dog turd.

      Delete
    3. stalking

      Can't get mom to take you bowling this fine day ?

      Delete
  21. I agree with Rat. Time to move on. MOME still says the fix is in and we've all been played, especially those who blindly support the corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Obama:

    “I can guarantee [there will be no political interference] and I can guaranteed that not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive — that is institutionally how we have always operated.

    I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI director about pending investigations.

    We have a strict line and always have maintained it during my presidency.”
    ===

    With the Black Panthers with clubs at the voting place, he didn't have to, Holder would have done it on his own, but there are plenty of ways to send signals.

    Likewise with Lynch, she knows damn well what Obama wants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no need to try to convince us that Obama is not truthful, Doug.
      It does not matter, he is not standing for reelection.

      The FBI stands intact, NO resignations ...
      None at all

      Delete
  23. 538, the most accurate analyst of them all, has Clinton at +5 in Florida, and at 342 Electoral Votes, overall.

    538 States Forecast

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here are the Florida Polls, their ratings, and results:

    538 Florida Polls and Analysis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember, this is the outfit that went 99/100 the last two Presidential Elections.

      Delete
    2. This should give you some idea of what they do.

      538

      Delete
    3. How Nate Silver Failed To Predict Trump

      https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=How+Nate+Silver+Failed+To+Predict+Trump

      Delete
    4. 7 Times Nate Silver Was Hilariously Wrong About Donald Trump

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/#ixzz4DgB4Tx75

      Delete
    5. You had Iraq ISIS free last 4th of July.

      Maybe next 4th of July though I wouldn't bet on it.

      Delete
  25. Hillary had her chance at answering the 3a.m. phone call. She blew that one big time.

    The Independent Johnson would probably be dead crashed from smoking his beloved dope.

    Stein I don't know about though she might well be more concerned about the environment and the animals than the American People.

    Hard Drinkin' Joe Biden would be hungover.

    The Donald however is a life long tea total, doesn't smoke or do drugs.

    My wife heard this and said "I'm voting for The Donald".

    He'd be wide awake and ready to go the moment the phone rings.

    I'm voting for The Donald, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to see Joni Ernst drop out of the VP list.

      Delete
    2. Ivanka Trump would make a good VP choice for The Donald.

      ;)

      Or any of the sons....

      Delete
    3. That 03:00 hrs call went from Benghazi to LANGLEY, not Foggy Bottom, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      The boys at the CIA Annex called their Chain of Command, not the State Department.
      They got their orders from LANGLEY, that means David Howell Petraeus got that call, David Howell Petraeus who was corrupt, did go to trial and was found guilty.

      Delete
  26. I find this most interesting ...

    Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick SURGES Ahead Of John McCain In Arizona Senate Race

    http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/06/democrat-ann-kirkpatrick-surges-ahead-of-john-mccain-in-arizona-senate-race-details/


    Democrats May Get Rid Of Both Mitch McConnell And John McCain As Poll Shows Big Trouble For GOP


    By Jason Easley on Tue, May 17th, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    A new PPP poll of Arizona shows that Mitch McConnell's obstruction of President Obama may cost John McCain his Senate seat, and McConnell his Senate majority.


    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/17/democrats-rid-mitch-mcconnell-john-mccain-poll-shows-big-trouble-gop.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. July 6, 2016

    Why Comey Blinked

    By Karin McQuillan


    It is galling the day after July 4th to be greeted by yet one more official at the highest level of government, who has declined to respect the rule of law in favor of giving a free pass to the Obama Administration.

    FBI Director Comey indicted Hillary Clinton in the court of public opinion by laying out before the TV cameras, step by step, her gross negligence in handling classified material, including Top Secret information that would compromise our national security if made accessible to our enemies. He told us Clinton sent classified information over servers not as safe as a simple gmail account. He told us it is impossible for the FBI to ascertain what foreign hostile actors may have accessed her account, but there is good evidence to believe that the information was hacked.

    We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

    He told us that it is a federal felony “to mishandle classified information …in a grossly negligent way.”

    He told us a second statute makes “it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.”

    He then described in clear, specific detail how Sect. of State Clinton knowingly removed classified information from appropriate systems and storage facilities. He concluded “there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

    According to former New York Mayor Giuliani the legal definition of gross negligence is to be extremely careless.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness…the FBI clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense. …It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary…It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison.

      And then, in an act of great cynicism, FBI Director Comey looked the American people directly in the eye and told us that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary Clinton.

      His build up as to why the FBI decided to recommend no criminal charges:


      In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. … we frequently … engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence.

      This is the tell: “We …engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate.”

      Comey is telling us he spoke to the Obama DOJ about “what resolution may be appropriate.” It is obvious he was told that no criminal charges would be brought against Hillary Clinton. DOJ refused to even charge her on the misdemeanor level that she did “knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.”

      Unlike the men we honored the day before, on July 4th, who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend liberty and the rule of law, FBI Director Comey was not willing to put anything on the line. He wanted us to know Hillary was guilty as hell. But he was not willing to pit the FBI against Obama’s DOJ, so he let the guilty walk free without even at attempt at insisting she be charged.

      Everyone has known from the start Obama would never prosecute Hillary. So Comey looked us in the eye and told us no reasonable prosecutor would take action on the gross negligence and betrayal of our national security that Hillary Clinton ordered as Secretary at State.

      It depends on the meaning of reasonable.

      See also: Comey’s Game

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/why_comey_blinked.html#ixzz4DgnFACCh
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Delete
    2. No one blinked, there was no case that would lead to a conviction.

      That is why there have been NO RESIGNATIONS from anyone at the FBI

      Delete
    3. Total bullshit, which is usual coming from you.

      Delete
    4. What are the names of the FBI agents that have resigned, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson?

      Come on, if you can't name even one, it is you who is flouting total bullshit, not me.

      Give us a name, Robert, just one, if you can.

      Delete
  28. James Comey and the Road to Tyranny

    Now it is up to the voters to decide if we are a nation of laws or men.

    July 6, 2016

    Bruce Thornton 

    Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

    FBI Director James Comey has decided not to recommend that Hillary Clinton be indicted for violating security laws concerning the handling of classified information, among other offenses. By doing so he has compromised a fundamental principle of consensual government: that the laws apply equally to everybody, including those entrusted with the people’s power. Now it is up to voters come November to reaffirm that we are a nation of laws, not men.

    Comey chose to do what I suggested on May 20 as a possible scenario: “There are any number of ways the Bureau could spin such a recommendation [not to indict] in a way to let Hillary off the hook: no proof of intent, evidence of carelessness but not criminality, or throwing some staffers and aides under the bus.” Comey in his announcement chose two out of three. He scolded Hillary for being “extremely careless,” but said there was no evidence of intent.

    Both statements raise suspicions. First, the statute in question proscribes “gross negligence.” How is “extreme carelessness” different from “gross negligence”? Is there a firm legal distinction between these two? Black’s Law Dictionary defines “negligence” in law as “The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” Here is the definition for “carelessness”: “Negligence: failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.” See any difference?

    A prudent and reasonable person would not pass classified materials over an unsecured email server. A prudent and reasonable person would also consider Comey’s apparent fine distinction between “gross negligence” and “extreme carelessness” to be a sophistry worthy of Bill Clinton’s metaphysical ruminations on the meaning of “is.” As for “intent,” res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers like Comey say. The very fact that Hillary set up a private server on which to conduct government business, much of it concerning classified materials, is itself a violation no matter the intent. But Comey knows that “intent” is not an issue in determining “gross negligence” according to the statute. A drunk driver doesn’t “intend” to kill anybody, but he’s still going to be charged with a felony for his “gross negligence.” So too Hillary “intended” to shelter her communications from Freedom of Information Act inquiries that might turn up information detrimental to her political ambitions, not to endanger government secrets. That doesn’t affect the criminality of her actions.

    Just ask General David Petraeus. In 2012 he didn’t “intend” to “mishandle classified materials” that he shared with his girlfriend. The FBI recommended a felony indictment anyway, which AG Eric Holder reduced to a misdemeanor. A prudent and reasonable person would conclude that the only distinction between Hillary and Petraeus is that the latter didn’t have Hillary Clinton’s political mojo. I’m reminded of Jonathon Swift’s observation that “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” We should wonder what has happened at the FBI in the last few years that has made a relatively minor breach of security protocol worthy of punishment, and then suddenly made a much more serious and consequential breach not worthy of indictment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are other circumstances that cast suspicion on Comey’s decision. Is it a coincidence that Obama endorsed Hillary a month before Comey’s announcement? Or that Hillary in March confidently predicted she wouldn’t be indicted? Or that a few days before the announcement AG Loretta Lynch had a tête–à–tête with Bill Clinton, something she knew was inappropriate, but meaningless if the decision had already been made? Or that Lynch’s pledge to follow the FBI’s recommendation was empty if she already knew what the recommendation would be? Or that Hillary and Obama had scheduled their first joint campaign appearance on the same day of the announcement? You don’t have to be a grassy-knoll obsessive to smell something fishy, particularly give the 25-year history of Clintonian skullduggery, lies, and manipulation of the law.

      Nor do we have to believe that one of Hillary’s or Obama’s flunkeys visited Comey and gave him his marching orders. Henry II didn’t have to order the murder of Thomas Becket, just express his annoyance with him, and thugs did the rest. By the same token, it makes no difference if Comey believes his decision is based on his independent judgment. Those responsible for applying the law must be like Caesar’s wife: above suspicion even if innocent. But judging just by what has already been leaked about Hillary’s behavior, Comey is either guilty or incompetent.

      Comey’s decision is just the latest in a long-developing trend. In recent years government officials from the president on down have demonstrated the progressives’ penchant for disregarding laws that don’t serve their private or political interests. And our guardians of the law have been singularly inept at honoring their charge to enforce the laws equally. The IRS’s Lois Lerner violated both her professional ethics and the Constitution in order to intimidate the Democrats’ political rivals, twice evoking the 5th Amendment in her testimony before a House committee. Yet the DOJ found nothing worthy of their attention, AG Loretta Lynch perfuming Lerner’s violations with “prosecutorial discretion” ––the same pretext she used to excuse Obama’s executive orders on immigration during her confirmation hearing. Yes, the Republican Senate confirmed her anyway.

      Now it’s up to the people to confirm that we are still a nation of laws, not men, despite the failure of our caretakers of the law to do their jobs. The voters must show that they understand that tyranny rests precisely on the violation of this bedrock principle. Let me again quote Aristotle’s definition of tyranny, since so many people seemingly don’t get it: “that arbitrary power of an individual which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.”

      This is the fundamental choice before us in November. We will soon see if the American people don’t mind this erosion of our freedom, and “prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom,” as Tocqueville put it.

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263410/james-comehttp://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263410/james-comey-and-road-tyranny-bruce-thorntony-and-road-tyranny-bruce-thornton

      Delete
    2. Aristotle was very bleak on the recurring cycles of government.

      That's why he wrote his book of ethics for his son, Nichos, so he might have a better chance of negotiating his way through it all, and living as well as possible.

      Aristotle really had no answer other than that.

      Plato did, but his solution was worse than the problem.

      So, there you have it....

      Delete
    3. As to The One, Aristotle wished to understand and analyze it from the outside, so to speak, but not to experience it personally and know it from the inside.

      Delete
  29. So, I might as well say it yet once again:

    Jack is an unread illiterate anti-Semitic fool, stalker, Dead Beat Dad, self confessed killer and all round jerk-off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Tell us, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, just how many FBI agents have resigned in protest?

      The answer, we both know, is ZERO.

      You posted time and again, promising that there would be resignations from the FBI.
      But there has not been a single resignation.

      Not one agent thinks Comey was egregiously wrong.

      Delete

    2. The only one, here, who has been egregiously wrong on this matter is you, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      Delete
    3. I put up some posts where others speculated about the possibility. There was speculation at both EB and Hot Air, and RCP too.

      Can't remember 'promising'.

      I am very disappointed in Comey, the turd, and the FBI as a whole.

      Comey, I just heard, is going to be testifying before Congress, I think tomorrow.

      I hope they give him hell.

      Go to bed now, rathole, it's past your bedtime, and your timeclock for stalking me has expired for this day.

      Delete
  30. "Q"Nits of the Day -

    Minnesota: Muslim ‘refugees’ threaten community with rape, mainstream media covers up incident
    By Robert Spencer on Jul 06, 2016 05:36 pm

    Minnesota: Muslim ‘refugees’ threaten community with rape, mainstream media covers up incident
    “A check of the Star-Tribune website, Minneapolis’s largest newspaper, did not turn up a single story about the June 28 terror-threatening run through the Lake Calhoun neighborhood. KSTP Channel 5, an ABC affiliate in Minneapolis, never mentions that those making the alleged terroristic threats were Somalis. The station’s video report by Brett Hoffland, however, zooms […]
    Read in browser »

    share on Twitter Like Minnesota: Muslim ‘refugees’ threaten community with rape, mainstream media covers up incident on Facebook Google Plus One Button


    North Carolina: Two Muslims imprisoned for plotting to go to Syria or Yemen to murder non-Muslims
    By Robert Spencer on Jul 06, 2016 05:18 pm

    North Carolina: Two Muslims imprisoned for plotting to go to Syria or Yemen to murder non-Muslims
    “Authorities say 23-year-olds, Avin Brown and Akba Jordan, had discussions with an FBI informant about traveling to either Syria or Yemen to kill non-Muslims.” There are plenty more non-Muslims in Raleigh, North Carolina than in Syria or Yemen. How long would it have taken these two geniuses to realize that they could commit even more […]
    Read in browser »

    Huffington Post tries to discredit report of Muslim Congressmen’s ties to Muslim Brotherhood; real story is much worse
    Clearly Ellison and Carson have extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as I explained here. Imagine if they were right-wing Christian Congressman with ties to a militia group that spoke in its literature of “eliminating and destroying Islam from within.” Do you think the media would be actively covering for those Congressmen, as they are […]
    Read in browser »

    http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=12857896c3097382b25b80a09&id=ae3a386b17&e=ed5f5d431b

    ReplyDelete
  31. July 7, 2016

    FBI Resignations: Where Are They?

    By Karl Ushanka


    Roughly 150 FBI agents were assigned to the Hillary Clinton email case. It was a criminal investigation to determine if the Secretary of State violated any laws when she a) installed an unauthorized email server in her home, b) conducted State business on that server, c) sent and received classified information on that server, and d) stored classified information on that server. If it was determined that any of the above were crimes, then a criminal indictment would apply.

    Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey, announced that no charges would be sought.

    Where are the FBI agent resignations?

    I don’t ask this because this is a politically charged event where I can score points. Others are doing that and they don’t need my help. I ask because I am passing judgment on the agents who saw a crime, are now associated with the cover-up, and are now doing nothing.

    I can pass this judgment because I once faced a similar decision.

    After fourteen years in the Army Reserves, I had achieved my career goal of becoming a company commander. I made that goal in the mid-80’s when I was a private (E-1) in basic training.



    In the late 90’s I took command of a company. The primary responsibility of an incoming commander is also the least glamorous: master all the paperwork. In doing so, I discovered that my First Sergeant had been falsifying pay records for several months. He was getting paid for work he wasn’t doing. I went immediately to my boss, the Battalion Commander, with the evidence, which consisted of signatures, pay receipts and proof that no duty had been performed. It was a slam-dunk case. My commander was a fellow MP officer and a lawyer in the civilian world. He knew what to do. First, he pulled his copy of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and identified the three felonies that applied to my First Sergeant. He then consulted the two Sergeant Majors in the Battalion and his 2nd in command for their advice. They agreed with the evidence and the need for action. The Battalion Commander then told his new company commander, “Select the proper punishment, and I will support you.”

    After some research I chose the least bureaucratic of the punishment options: show the First Sergeant what his annual review would look like if he stayed in the unit. This is a common procedure in the reserves. Unlike a court-martial, a bad review costs nothing. It is also a private matter between superior and subordinate. I showed him a career-ending review that identified ‘his need for supervision when it came to pay matters,’ and I offered to write a good review if he were to leave immediately. He, in turn, energized his network at Brigade (over the battalion), and found a sympathetic ear with the Brigade Commander. That same Battalion Commander who told me “I’ll support you” said several weeks later, “We are not going to punish the First Sergeant.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A common training item in the military is the subject of ethics. I would venture the FBI trains on this topic too. For 14 years I was trained, or I trained others, to know the difference between a legal order and an illegal order. And part of any good ethics review is integrity. Knowing the difference between right and wrong and the importance of having strong moral principles. These are universal values at the FBI.

      Integrity also comes into play when you see a wrong.

      After basic training -- still a Private (E-1) -- I stood outside my platoon sergeant’s office at parade-rest waiting to meet him and join the platoon. I waited there a half-hour while he finished his coffee. A yellowed mimeographed copy of a copy was taped to the lime-green hallway wall. It was the only thing I could read from where I stood, so I read it over and over again. I remember every word after 30+ years. It said

      If you see something wrong and don’t do anything, you’ve just set a new standard.

      There was something wrong when my Battalion Commander told me to ignore my First Sergeant’s crimes. My commander ignored his oath and put his career before the Army. I resigned my command that day, and my Army Reserve Commission shortly thereafter.

      Changing gears like that mid-career is rough. It is a big decision. But one lesson I can share, the big decisions in life are the easiest. Assuming you are true to yourself.

      As many as 150 FBI agents face the same large, yet simple, decision. (I think they should have already made the decision over a year ago.) Did any of them see anything wrong Tuesday when Director Comey ignored his oath and put his career before the FBI? Because if they did, and because no resignations have been reported, each agent on this case who went back to work today has set a new standard.

      Karl blogs at Ushanka.us. He is pictured above taking command of his Army Reserve company.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/fbi_resignations_where_are_they.html#ixzz4DhuCZvhr
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Delete
    2. July 6, 2016

      Comey’s game

      By Thomas Lifson


      Yesterday, the director of the FBI offered 15 of the most puzzling minutes in the history of American law enforcement. James Comey spent the first 12 minutes or so laying out a devastating case dismantling Hillary Clinton’s email defense. Then, in a whiplash-inducing change of narrative, he announced that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case he had just outlined, an assertion that was contradicted within hours by luminaries including former U.S. attorney (and mayor) Rudy Giuliani and James Kallstrom, former head of the FBI’s New York office.

      How can we possibly explain the FBI director deliberately inducing mass cognitive dissonance?

      If, as many on the right fear, the fix was in, Comey did not need to lay out such an overwhelming case that already has provided ample ammunition to refute Hillary Clinton’s many lies about her email practices.

      I think it is possible that Comey was grudgingly complying with the reality that he learned in the wake of the covert meeting between Bill Clinton and A.G. Lynch (that became public only because a Phoenix TV station was doing a story on VIP arrivals at Sky Harbor Airport). I suspect that he learned, directly or indirectly, that no case would be brought against Hillary Clinton. As Karin McQuillan noted today, he provided a “tell” when he said:


      We … engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate.

      This would leave him with a decision to respond the hard way or the easy way. I have no idea what the hard way would involve, whether it involved losing positive inducements to cooperate and be a good team member or whether something decidedly unpleasant might happen to him or his loved ones, as has happened to so many people inconvenient to the Clintons, by sheer coincidence, of course. The easy way would be no recommendation for prosecution, allowing A.G. Lynch to keep her promise to follow whatever the FBI recommended. That would call off the dogs.

      So did Director Comey cooperate the way American prisoners of war did, when forced to read statements praising their captors, by in effect blinking Morse code? He gave exactly what he was supposed to. But he did it in a way calculated to do political damage to Hillary Clinton.

      Then there is the small matter of the ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and potential quid-pro-quo corruption lining the actions of the secretary of state to donations to the foundation. Comey let us know that quite a few deleted emails were recovered from Hillary’s servers but said absolutely nothing about the other investigation.


      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/comeys_game.html#ixzz4Dhwa6dwI
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Delete
  32. July 6, 2016

    Our government is officially a crime syndicate

    By Patricia McCarthy


    After laying out a long list of her many lies and prosecutable crimes – gross negligence with regard to national security being the most profound – FBI director Comey said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges" against Hillary Clinton. He said she did not have any "intent" to put the nation at risk.

    No intent! Four private servers for her government business does not qualify as intent to deceive? She did what she did to keep her illegal wheeling and dealing out of the hands of any law enforcement agency, and she succeeded. She most certainly did put the nation at risk. It will take years to discover to what degree national security has been endangered. As Bill Ayers put it, "[g]uilty as sin, free as a bird...what a country."

    No one should be shocked by this turn of events. Just as John Roberts upended the Constitution to proclaim Obamacare legal, just as Eric Holder refused to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation or turn over Fast and Furious documents, just as Comey declined to prosecute Lois Lerner for her many, many crimes, the men and women of position in D.C. long ago sold their souls for the power to preserve each other's power, no matter what crimes they commit in furtherance of their personal agendas and greed. This is how they roll, all of them. People who challenge this status quo, like Ted Cruz, are relentlessly maligned by an unprincipled media who in mind-numbed fashion effectively destroy any persons of character who wander onto their playground. (It was Ted Cruz who said, "Hillary embodies the corruption of Washington." She does indeed.)

    For months, the punditry on both sides of the ideological divide has been touting Comey's impartiality, his commitment to the law. They said he is a "straight shooter." So much for their misplaced faith in his character. Like most everyone else with substantial political power in D.C., he has abused his.

    We can now conclude that the FBI is as politicized as the DOJ. (Just what did Bill Clinton say to Loretta Lynch that day?) Now we know for sure that neither agency can be trusted to uphold the law.

    The left, of course, is celebrating Comey's decision; they care not a bit that their candidate for the presidency has no regard for the truth or the law. The left stopped caring about character and the truth when they elected LBJ. Comey is just the latest consigliere in service to this criminal administration. Someone made him an offer he could not refuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is true that some of the top-secret emails on her personal server were sent between the President and Ms. Clinton, then the outcome of this case was decided long ago, and there was no legitimate "investigation." The fix was in from the beginning. Obama was not going to pulled into a Clinton scandal. Comey deemed crimes and lies unworthy of indictment, but he seemed to say that the rest of us should not feel similarly free to operate as Ms. Clinton has. We would be prosecuted. He essentially admitted that she is above the law.

      Despite Comey's capitulation to the Clintons' wealth and power, it should be obvious to every American voter that she is thoroughly unfit to hold any office, let alone the highest office in the land. Those emails are most likely in the hands of Putin, China, and the mullahs of Iran. Those powers that be will surely exert undue influence over her if she inhabits the White House. To what ends? Theirs.

      So as dispiriting as Comey's lack of fortitude is to lawful Americans, let us hope the voters will demonstrate their contempt for such blatant disregard for the law and national security. Donald Trump may not be anyone's idea of a perfect candidate, but he is not Hillary. At this point, that is all that matters. She cannot gain more power than she already wields. Barack Obama has done terrible damage to the nation in his seven and a half years. If elected, she will do much, much more, this woman who has become a multi-millionaire pre-selling her influence to foreign countries and countless other donors of dubious moral nature.

      Joe Biden once said, "Corruption is just another form of tyranny." Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.



      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/our_government_is_officially_a_crime_syndicate.html#ixzz4DiRIwAtM
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Delete
  33. Why Hillary Clinton Must Go To Jail

    No one can be above the law.

    July 7, 2016

    Daniel Greenfield 

    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

    In 1994, Hillary Clinton took questions under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Wearing a pink pantsuit, she offered what would become her customary mix of lies and defensiveness, admitting to something and then trying to shift the blame, denying that she had broken the law and then claiming ignorance.

    It was an act that we would see over and over again for the next few decades, but back then it was still new when Hillary Clinton claimed that she couldn’t remember anything, that the whole Whitewater affair was an invasion of her privacy and that she had never meant to do anything wrong.

    Some twenty years later, we have spent the past few months witnessing the same performance.

    She blamed sexism for Whitewater. "It’s a little difficult for us as a country, maybe, to make the transition of having a woman like many of the women in this room, sitting in this house.” Her supporters claim that her email scandal is caused by sexism rather than her blatant violation of the law.

    "I do feel like I've always been a fairly private person leading a public life," Hillary Clinton whined about the examination of her shady investments. This time around she claimed that her whole rogue email server filled with classified documents was an attempt at protecting her classified yoga routines.

    The truth, then and now, is that Hillary Clinton is a public figure who claims that her private life is being invaded whenever she gets caught violating the law.

    Then there are the vague statements that almost sound like apologies, but aren’t. “I'm not in any way excusing any confusion that we have created," she said of Whitewater. But the only confusion was Hillary’s efforts to make her critics appear to be confused. On her emails, she said that she was "sorry that it has raised all these questions." Which is another way of saying that she was sorry she got caught.

    Finally there is the politician who would be president playing dumb. Hillary Clinton didn’t understand how investments worked back then. She doesn’t understand how emails work now. When all else fails, Hillary Clinton will plead incompetence and then claim that she wants to focus on fixing health care.

    Investments are confusing. Email accounts are confusing. Someone please put her in charge of something simple. Like health care for the entire country. Or maybe just the entire country.

    No one trusts her and no one believes that she will ever be held accountable.

    In 1998, prosecutors had the evidence to bring charges against Hillary Clinton. They chose not to act because they did not believe that she would be convicted. If that sounds familiar, it should.

    FBI Director James Comey got up in front of the country and laid out a criminal case against Hillary over her email abuses and then announced that no prosecutor would ever take it. The material was there and it still is there. But no one in authority believes that Hillary Clinton will ever be held accountable.

    Back then the evidence was too circumstantial. This time around there’s no definitive proof of criminal intent. Each time Hillary Clinton plays dumb, plays the victim and then urges everyone to move on.

    Hillary Clinton lied about Whitewater. She lied about her covert email operation. Comey’s exoneration was more like an indictment, sweeping aside her lies about her classified correspondence. But that too is nothing new. Hillary Clinton has always lied and her lies are always exposed. Her fallback position is to argue that no one can prove that she knew she was committing a crime. Out of that mix of denials, partial admissions, non-apologies, misleading lawyerly statements, comes that final defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can’t prove that I knew I was committing a crime.

      This time around, the FBI could prove that she broke the law, that she lied about breaking the law and that she knew the law, but not that she intended to break the law. That brand of absurdity has gotten her off before. And it worked once again at the most crucial moment of her career.

      Hillary Clinton trails a pattern of crimes and cover-ups dating back decades. And still no one can prove that she knew that was committing the crimes that she committed. Her associates have gone to jail. Her alibis have been shredded. But instead of heading to jail, she is aiming at the White House.

      And that’s inevitable.

      The Clinton crimes have always come down to politics. From Whitewater onwards, the Clintons got rich and powerful by exploiting their political connections. The Clinton Foundation and its rainbow of cash, from sources foreign and domestic, is just Whitewater writ large. The email scandal is the same old Clinton records game that they have been playing for decades being conducted with more high tech tools.

      The Clinton server is more impressive than Sandy Berger burglarizing the National Archives for classified documents about Bill’s failure to fight Islamic terrorism, but it’s not really any different.

      Berger’s burglary was dubbed an “honest mistake.” Hillary’s rogue email server? Another mistake, but only because “It’s caused all this uproar and commotion.” After she blatantly lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, she smugly retorted, “So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I’m human, which for some people is a revelation.”

      It’s a revelation only because it’s the one single thing that she never lied about.

      A trail of lies and scandals isn’t a mistake. It’s a record. Hillary Clinton has been entirely consistent in her criminal career. And just as consistently, she has never faced any consequences for her crimes.

      Every time she might have been held accountable, investigations were written off as partisan witch hunts and prosecutors and law enforcement backed off convinced that trying to prosecute her would be futile. And that’s a mistake. Corruption grows when there is no accountability.

      When Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General, when the FBI Director makes a show of pardoning Hillary right before his boss goes to campaign for her, the message is that those in power can play by a different set of rules than ordinary people. And that is another way of saying that our society is corrupt.

      If the Clintons can commit any crime that they like without being held accountable, that sends a message to ordinary people that we are not a nation of laws, but of special interests. It becomes harder to ask the average person to do the right thing when their leaders profit by doing the wrong thing.

      The Clintons have amassed fortune, power and fame by being crooked. Holding them accountable is not just about partisan political battles, but about our integrity and our ethics as a nation.

      Even many Democrats are disgusted by the Clintons. Comey’s speech was not met with celebrations, but with disgust. Media outlets compiled every example of how the FBI Director had shredded Hillary’s alibi. Everyone understood what had happened here. The only ones celebrating this shameful miscarriage of justice were the Clintons, their corrupt cronies and amoral associates.

      During her Whitewater conference, Hillary Clinton claimed, “I don't want anybody to have the wrong impressions of either of us." The trouble is that the entire nation has the right impression of her.

      America deserves leaders who inspire us to be better people. And we can’t have that until we start holding corrupt politicians accountable. It is time for Americans from all parties and political backgrounds to demand an end to the immunity of the Clinton Crime Family.

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263435/why-hillary-clinton-must-go-jail-daniel-greenfield

      Delete