This has already started to be discussed in comments at yesterday’s post, but I want to start a new one: The fourteen worst things for Hillary to come out of it. He basically said she was guilty of pretty much everything, except he wasn’t going to indict her because she was a Clinton.
The Clintons have gotten away with so many felonies over so many decades, Comey didn't want to be the guy to spoil their record.
— Apostle To Morons (@Rand_Simberg) July 5, 2016
[Update a few minutes later]
Comey’s remarks were devastating to Hillary. And no “reasonable” Attorney General meets with the spouse of someone under FBI investigation.
[Update a few minutes later]
Comey sells out the rule of law. And “today’s the day that rule of law died.” And did Comey “destroy Hillary by ‘exonerating” her“?
Pro tip: He didn’t exonerate her any more than Bob Ray did in Whitewater. “Insufficient evidence to indict” is no an exoneration.
[Update a few minutes later]
This is amusing. The State Department refuses to say whether or not Clinton and her aides have retained their clearances.
No one else in this situation would. They’re refusing to say because if they say she and they haven’t, they know the damage it would do to the campaign, as Obama flies her around on AF1, and lets her speak with the presidential seal in front of her lectern.
[Update a while later]
A ” target=”_blank”>mashup from ReasonTV of Comey’s presser and Hillary’s lies. Expect to see a lot of SuperPACs showing this.
Of interest:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/05/rudy-giuliani-by-jim-comeys-own-description-hillary-is-guilty-of-a-federal-crime/
Here’s Giuliani:
If that constituted gross negligence, and you could prove that the emails in question ended up in the hands of unauthorized persons (i.e. hackers who exploited either the Clinton server or the State Department system), then you might have a basis for a felony charge not only against Clinton, but against every person who sent or received those emails. You’re talking about hundreds of defendants. And if hundreds of State Department employees are doing it, can you really convince a jury that it’s grossly negligent behavior? Gross negligence is defined as falling far below the ordinary standard of care, and the ordinary standard of care at the U.S. State Department, before and during Clinton’s time there, tolerated sending classified information over unclassified email systems.
Very few people sent. People who received have no problem as long as they report that they received them. That is how the system is supposed to work. There is zero evidence that prior to Clinton’s tenure sending classified email on unclassified systems was tolerated, and she herself was warned about it, and denied permission to do it.
Very few people sent
It doesn’t matter — the statute covers receiving (and that was Clinton’s role most of the time).
People who received have no problem as long as they report that they received them.
Nobody reported them, so they all would have a problem.
There is zero evidence that prior to Clinton’s tenure sending classified email on unclassified systems was tolerated
Then you haven’t been paying attention. The State IG found that it was tolerated under Rice and Powell. No security or administrative sanctions, much less prosecutions. This is old news.
she herself was warned about it, and denied permission to do it
Clinton never asked for permission to send classified information on unclassified systems, and neither did any of the other hundreds of people included on the email chains in question.
Nobody reported them, so they all would have a problem.
How do you know?
Clinton never asked for permission to send classified information on unclassified systems.
She tried to get access to the SCIF with her Blackberry.
How do you know?
If a State Department employee (much less dozens or hundreds of them) had reported that there was classified information in emails sent to or from the Secretary, that fact would have been in the IG report.
She tried to get access to the SCIF with her Blackberry.
Not the same thing. She wanted to use her Blackberry everywhere — this whole scandal is a consequence of her inordinate love of her Blackberry. She asked to use it in locations that are used for classified information, she didn’t ask to use it to send classified information.
Actually, Hillary repeatedly demanded to have her Blackberry (one of “several” devices, according to Comey), in the SCIF. You get fired for having a personal cell phone in a SCIF: I was informed of that in no uncertain terms fairly recently, when I started working in one.
So she was demanding (not “asking”) to have an unsecured device in an area where they are absolutely prohibited. Now why would that be, Ace?
Now why would that be, Ace?
Because she was addicted to her Blackberry, and didn’t want to be without it. “Entitled high-level executive makes unreasonable demand of underlings” is a dog bites man story. “I am offended by Clinton’s sense of entitlement so I’d rather let Trump be president” is a nonsensical reaction.
Apparently she was addicted to “numerous devices”.
Why believe the lie about the BlackBerry when you know it isn’t true?
Everything Hillary said about this was a lie, that’s what Comedy said.
Jim,
Your talking about laws you obviously know nothing about…
“you could prove that the emails in question ended up in the hands of unauthorized persons”
Here is what the law says: “ 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, ” Hillary set up the server that permitted the classified information to be removed from its proper place of custody. That’s all that needed to proved for that clause. The second part says if they knew and failed to report it, then they could also be fined or imprisoned.
Nobody reported them, so they all would have a problem.
Indeed, and they can still be prosecuted.
That’s all that needed to proved for that clause.
Your argument proves too much. Colin Powell set up an AOL account (which he knew to not be a “proper place of custody”) and allowed classified information to be sent to it. So is he guilty of a felony too?
Pretty sure Leland has addressed your continual deflection at Powell a dozen times before. You already know his answer yet deflect from dealing with Crooked Hillary’s actions.
The notion the Hillary and Powell’s actions were anything alike in insane but I am sure you will agree that the lawless precedents set by Obama are things that should be followed by future Presidents, as long as they are Democrat.
Yep, I’m perfectly fine with prosecuting Colin Powell. Bring it on Jim. As Comey stated, the Department of State seems pretty lax on properly securing data. Prosecuting Powell and Hillary would be a good start towards fixing that poor behavior.
Me, too. Prosecute Colin Powell. Jim is such an idiot that he thinks I care about Colin Powell.
Seriously, you idiot. Which prosecution for mishandling of classified information? The one against Colin Powell, or the one against Hillary Clinton?
Bring. It. On.
Also:
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2016/07/cartoon-of-the-day-scratch/
He basically said she was guilty of pretty much everything, except he wasn’t going to indict her because she was a Clinton.
Hardly. What he actually said:
Nobody would be indicted on these facts.
The Clintons have gotten away with so many felonies over so many decades
Care to speculate on how many felonies Trump has gotten away with?
Nobody would be indicted on these facts.
I don’t agree; anyone not named “Clinton” would be. But even if true:
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
Yeah, let’s put someone subject to security or administrative sanctions in the Oval Office.
Care to speculate on how many felonies Trump has gotten away with?
I have no idea, and if I were a Trump supporter it might matter, but I doubt it’s as many or as serious. Most of it is probably penny ante.
if I were a Trump supporter it might matter,
It matters to any voter in a contested state. Barring a black swan event (assassination, heart attack, etc.), either Clinton or Trump will be the next president. If you are in such a state, and think one of them is preferable to the other, it’s foolish not to vote for that candidate. Not voting for Clinton is voting for Trump, and vice-versa. But first you have to be sufficiently curious to decide which one is preferable.
Most of it is probably penny ante.
A revealing lack of curiosity. Compare and contrast with your obsession over the Clintons’ alleged misdeeds.
It matters to any voter in a contested state. Barring a black swan event (assassination, heart attack, etc.), either Clinton or Trump will be the next president.
Barring a fit of sanity among convention delegates. Neither is the nominee yet.
A revealing lack of curiosity. Compare and contrast with your obsession over the Clintons’ alleged misdeeds.
I have no such obsession. The misdeeds are not “alleged.” Among others, Comey described them today. So did Bob Ray. That they chose not to indict doesn’t mean they are innocent or exonerated.
Neither is the nominee yet.
But they will be, barring a black swan event.
I have no such obsession.
Ha. Tell us again about how Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached for lying about an affair, if memory serves that’s one of your favorite hobby horses. How many posts have you written about Clinton alleged crimes? And how many on Trump’s? Just last week multiple sources claimed that Trump listened in on guests’ phone conversations at his club (a crime in Florida) — is that worth a comment? Or would it just be interesting if a Clinton had done it?
Tell us again about how Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached for lying about an affair
That’s not what he was impeached for, but I know that you will continue to lie about it.
Just last week multiple sources claimed that Trump listened in on guests’ phone conversations at his club (a crime in Florida) — is that worth a comment?
Yes, my comment is that that’s terrible, Trump is terrible, and if I had ever expressed support for Trump, you might have a point, but I have opposed him almost every day for months.
FBI Director Comey found evidence that Hillary Clinton did send and receive classified email an her unsecure server.
Tell us Jim, do you have evidence supported by the FBI for this slander: “Just last week multiple sources claimed that Trump listened in on guests’ phone conversations at his club (a crime in Florida) “?
a black swan event
Here’s the Trump eavesdropping story.
I’m aware of the Trump eavesdropping story. I think Trump is terrible. There is nothing you can tell me about him that will increase my detestation of him.
Jim, your link says Trump listened to employees. Many business do this as well as read their emails.
Obama listened to the phone calls of reporters and their families.
Buzzfeed is not what I would call credible, and in the lede it states that other sources said it didn’t happen.
Have you read the contract for employment at Mar-a-lago? Did you note that 4 of the supposed sources signed NDA’s that they violated by talking to Buzzfeed. That’s the entirety of the evidence against Trump, 4 unidentified employees that violated their contracts and aren’t supporting him for President. The other sources, which were identified, said it didn’t happen and wouldn’t happen.
But back to your statement, Jim: “a crime in Florida”. Here’s what Buzzfeed wrote: “Florida state law generally makes it a crime to intercept or record phone calls without the consent of everyone in a conversation, but legal experts said that the law might not apply to employees using business phones at work.”
I’m not surprised a click factory like Buzzfeed would put this stuff out, but its a boring non-story of 4 employees that failed to adhere to their contract. And if you actually read their statements; it is even more boring. 3 of the 4 simply said he had a capability to eavesdrop. The only 1 to claim direct knowledge of eavesdrop didn’t actually have such knowledge. He simply assumed Trump could only know by eavesdropping. It could well be the customer on the other line contacted Trump and asked who the hell the bad employee was and could Trump do something about it.
I’m not saying I believe, or disbelieve, what Jim wants to libel Trump with. I’m saying that there is little/nothing bad that I could hear about Trump that I wouldn’t believe, but Jim is an imbecile to think that there is anything that he can post about Trump that would somehow change my low opinion of him. And yet, Hillary remains worse.
Hardly. What he actually said:
“These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails 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 these 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 U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). ”
US Code 18 Section 793F:
“(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.“
The part of 18 USC 793F that exempts Hillary is written in invisible ink. It’s there, we just can’t see it. This is how things work in a banana republic.
Question, has Jim ever had a security clearance?
No, I haven’t. I’m guessing that Comey has.
Thing is, Comey didn’t have to say anything regarding whether or not the Prosecutors should indict. It’s the prosecutors call not his.
But he did. He said that he felt he had to, in the speech. But that’s a load of codswallop.
Let us remember it was the Benghazi hearing that gave us the server information. At that time, Jim was already carrying water for Hillary and defending every single action.
Quote from Jim from this post:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=49163
Part of the GOP scandal-hunt MO is to throw up a flurry of charges. Individually they aren’t much, especially if you look closely, but that’s why it’s important to keep changing the subject, to preserve the illusion of a big scandal in there somewhere.
A challenge: can you pick a single specific Benghazi misdeed by a high-ranking member of the Obama administration that is backed up by non-partisan evidence, and that is serious enough to be considered criminal?
It’s been three years of stalling by Clinton, Inc, but we have our answer now. It doesn’t matter that she didn’t explicitly break the law, but she certainly fudged it and maneuvered around it so that she didn’t go to jail.
The sad part is the only reason to lie about Benghazi, as Clinton’s State Department did, was to allow Biden to go around claiming the Administration was tough on terrorism because Osama was killed during the first term. There was already one attack on US soil during Obama’s first term (though he called it workplace violence for several years), and it was followed up by several more attacks.
The truth, that Benghazi was a planned attack, would not have been detrimental to the Administration. They have remained soft on terrorism, and its not hurting them (only their voters in California and Florida). Even Jim has bragged about Americans can just absorb the attacks, just like he bragged that the Mexicans killed by Fast and Furious guns would have died anyway.
Let us remember it was the Benghazi hearing that gave us the server information
Exactly. Made-up scandals like Benghazi are an opportunity to go fishing for unrelated dirt. The original charges were that Obama and/or Clinton gave a stand-down order, that they didn’t call it an act of terror, that they publicly blamed it on the video, etc. We now know none of that to be true, but the scandal machine lumbers on to the next thing (e.g. claims that Bill Clinton somehow hypnotized Loretta Lynch into using Jedi mind tricks to convince a Republican FBI director to tank an otherwise open-and-shut case against Hillary Clinton).
It doesn’t matter that she didn’t explicitly break the law
Let me go out on a limb and say that it matters whether she broke the law.
Yes, it matters; explicitly breaking the law would make it worse. But she behaved in blatant and utter disregard for the security of classified information, for personal gain. For any rational person, it would be disqualifying for a Commander in Chief.
To anyone sane, regardless of the fact that he’s not indicting, Comey provided an extended argument as to why she should never have a position of that authority and responsibility.
Actually, we know that many of the accusations made against Hillary and Obama are true because of the hearing. Hillary’s testimony in front of congress was also instrumental in proving she lied.
Now, we have more evidence of her lying and breaking the law on numerous occasions. She had staff dedicated to breaking the law. All of this was made crystal clear by the FBI investigation.
Made-up scandals like Benghazi
Are you claiming that the death of an Ambassador in Benghazi never happened and was made-up? I’m pretty sure it happened, and it is only reasonable for Congress to hold an investigation into what happened. It only became a scandal when Susan Rice started claiming the death was caused by a spontaneous protest, which both Hillary and Obama now claim was never what they thought happened. I seem to recall Obama claiming in the rose garden that it was a terrorist act from the beginning. So why did Susan Rice say something different? Why shouldn’t Congress ask such a simple question?
To all of the Jims of the world, I recommend the following story:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/27/mishandling-classified-information-leads-to-jail-time-if-your-name-is-not-clinton/
You can stick your fingers in your ears and shout “La-La-La-La-La!” to drown out a few basic facts. It doesn’t change the facts.
For one thing, the statute doesn’t require “intent.” Gross negligence (which wasn’t nearly as applicable to POFC Kristian as it is to Hillary) is sufficient. Furthermore, you should eyeball the NDA she signed. I signed the same thing, but I take it seriously. It is a lifelong comittment. http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf Paragraphs 2-4 were violated every time she and Sidney Blumenthal, who had no clearance, exchanged SCI information.
This is a blatant example of the kind of inequality that Hillary supposedly decries. At least Bernie Sanders appears to be honest about deploring it. I can’t say the same for people who, for no comprehensible reason, will defend any Clinton malfeasance, no matter how egregious.
Saucier is pleading guilty to mishandling classified information — by intentionally taking pictures when he knew that doing so was illegal — but that isn’t all he did:
Whereas Hillary doesn’t have to plead anything, even though she discussed TS/SCI information in unsecured e-mails. Even Mr. Comey says it was information that anyone familiar with national security knew was classified. And if you know it’s classified, you do NOT put it in an unsecured email. There was no accident here. She went to great lengths to set up e-mail outside of the State Department system, she used it to for all of her official correspondence (and her side dealing). She knew the information was classified, and knew that you didn’t send classified in unsecured media, and did it anyway.
Saucier initially denied taking the pictures. Hillary denied sending or receiving any classified information. Both lied. Saucier destroyed his devices. Hillary had the servers wiped. Saucier allegedly had a handgun in his house not registered to him. Meh. I have lots of handguns in my house, none of which are registered to me. There’s no requirement, and I’ve had most of them for more than 30 years. If he indeed had a handgun (remember, it’s “alleged”), and had it prior to 2014, there would be no requirement for the serial number to be in the state’s possession. There really isn’t a handgun registration requirement, anyway. As for Hillary, the destruction of records goes back decades. Add to that the “leak” from Hillary’s campaign on July 3 that she was considering keeping Loretta Lynch as AG after she’s crowned, and you have bribery.
There is no comparison in scale between Hillary’s malfeasance and Saucier’s. His is minuscule, but he’s going to prison. Her’s is staggering, and she’s going to be crowned President.
Hillary destroyed her server and at least tens of thousands of emails. She also made endless false claims about her actions in public. Thanks for quoting how Hillary took actions more serious than a nobody who went to trial for what he did.
She intentionally took insecure devices, numerous ones, into secured areas, she ordered staff to strip classified materials of their markings and took them off the secure network, and many other crimes that would have anyone who isn’t a member of Democrat’s corrupt power structure in jail.
Vote for Hillary: She Denies It All.
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
Via Iowahawk. Hit post too soon.
Old rule: “Anything but a dead woman or a live boy”.
New Rule: “Anything Jim can swallow on his knees.”
The easiest explanation for Comey’s 1) outlining how she broke the law at every level, and 2) saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges is that “no reasonable prosecutor would want to make a visit to Fort Marcy Park this time of year.”
That, I think, is the simplest explanation. And probably the most accurate.
Comey did not outline how she broke any laws at any level. He specifically noted there was no evidence of criminal intent, and implied that they could not prove gross negligence. Without one or the other, no law was broken.
There isn’t any requirement for “criminal intent,” whatever that is, in the statute. Gross negligence is all that is required, and he demonstrated that in spades.
He did outline how she broke the law. He said no prosecuted at the DOJ would charge her and he was right, Obama’s DOJ is corrupt.