Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 213 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    Tommy De Seno:I just watched a coup against the American government by FBI director James Comey. He found 110 times Hillary was involved in illegally emailing classified information. He found 8 times Hillary was involved in emailing TOP SECRET information. He found her personal servers illegal. His reason for recommending to DOJ to not bring charges? They’ve never done it before. REALLY? So the first person that runs afoul of any law gets a pass becasue no prosecution like it has been brought before? THAT’S NOT THE LEGAL STANDARD!!!! Wow.

    Its like the Jury in the OJ trial.   They knew he was guilty, they just didn’t want to do it.

    Jury  FBI nullification

    • #31
  2. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Frank Soto:

    James Madison:

    Frank Soto:Comey in brief: While it is clear that Secretary Clinton and her aides violated the law, we don’t think they really meant to. So we’re good.

    Again, proving they did not think they could prove “intent.”

    They don’t have to.

    Sorry Frank, they do for the serious violations.  But believe what you will.

    Read Comey’s comments.  And understand this, I predicted this 6 months ago.  Intent is tricky.  And for a serious violation of classified laws, and almost all felonies are, you need intent.

    • #32
  3. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    iWe:

    Joe P:Why did he structure the presser like this?

    If you had followed everything up until the last 5 minutes, you’d think they were going to push for an indictment. So, why did he bother saying all of that the way that he did?

    To maintain some shred of dignity.

    That ship has sailed.

    • #33
  4. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    James Madison:

    Frank Soto:

    James Madison:

    Frank Soto:Comey in brief: While it is clear that Secretary Clinton and her aides violated the law, we don’t think they really meant to. So we’re good.

    Again, proving they did not think they could prove “intent.”

    They don’t have to.

    Sorry Frank, they do for the serious violations. But believe what you will.

    Read Comey’s comments. And understand this, I predicted this 6 months ago. Intent is tricky. And for a serious violation of classified laws, and almost all felonies are, you need intent.

    Read the statute that I posted.

    • #34
  5. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Hopefully, you, your family and friends all enjoyed yesterday’s celebration of freedom from tyranny. Cherish and remember it in the days and years to come.

    • #35
  6. Probable Cause Inactive
    Probable Cause
    @ProbableCause

    Carol:So much for James Comey’s vaunted integrity.

    Not excusing him, but I note this mitigating circumstance: the Clintons would have destroyed him.

    • #36
  7. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Frank, good luck getting a prosecutor to proceed with that…

    • #37
  8. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    I just feel sick.

    The same way I did after a couple of the Supreme Court decisions on Obamacare.

    What reason is there to have faith that the institutions of our government will conduct themselves impartially? It seems now to be a given that the Left and the powerful will get their way no matter what.

    • #38
  9. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    Frank Soto:18 USC 793

    (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.

    Couldn’t be clearer. Intent is not required.

    Unless you intend on running for President in an oligarchy. Then it’s a pass.

    • #39
  10. Paul Dougherty Member
    Paul Dougherty
    @PaulDougherty

    I swear I am going to pop on the nose the first person who uses the word “Exhonerated” in my presence.

    • #40
  11. Pugshot Inactive
    Pugshot
    @Pugshot

    I hate to quote myself, but here’s what I predicted two days ago on another thread:

    Pugshot
    Lynch’s announcement is simply confirmation that the fix is in – the FBI will announce that there are troubling aspects to Hillary’s private e-mail server and that mistakes were made, but that there’s not enough to justify an indictment. And she will then declare the matter over (which she’s already been doing) and breeze on to the presidency. Lynch wouldn’t have announced that she will not interfere in the FBI’s decision unless she had already interfered in the FBI’s decision. Bill Clinton strikes again!

    Now if only I could predict the winning Lotto numbers!

    • #41
  12. KC Mulville Inactive
    KC Mulville
    @KCMulville

    Because I have a Top Secret clearance, I have to go through an annoying set of “training” courses that threaten me with consequences of mishandling secret information.

    So much for that.

    • #42
  13. The Forgotten Man Inactive
    The Forgotten Man
    @TheForgottenMan

    This decision is exactly why Donald Trump rose to the top and why everybody is angry.  Any competent prosecutor would be able to convict Hillary of multiple statute violations. Always with the Clintons the fix is in.  Did they ever retrieve  the Documents she scrubbed?

    • #43
  14. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Brian Watt: Let the outrage begin.

    It’s pointless.  We are a Banana Republic.

    Now with the talk of Hillary keeping Lynch at Just Us Dept, they are rubbing out faces in it.

    • #44
  15. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    HilarityClinton

    • #45
  16. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    Ten million voters will now say “See, she’s OK.” The rest never cared.

    • #46
  17. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    Probable Cause:

    Carol:So much for James Comey’s vaunted integrity.

    Not excusing him, but I note this mitigating circumstance: the Clintons would have destroyed him.

    What have we come to if this level of fear drives us. In two generations we’ve gone from Omaha Beach (real destruction of an individual) to this. Unbelieveable.

    • #47
  18. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Jamie Lockett:So the FBI Director declines to prosecute Hillary Clinton mere days after her husband met with the Attorney General in secret and on the same day that the President starts to campaign with her.

    Move along citizen, nothing to see here.

    And the candidate floats the news she might keep the AG on for the next dynasty….

    • #48
  19. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Frank Soto:18 USC 793

    (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.

    Couldn’t be clearer. Intent is not required.

    Well, you have to prove she was grossly negligent, and to do that you have show she intended to be so – gross negligence is different from negligence – and this law would say that if she handed out a page from her daily schedule she would be in violation.  There is the law and there is the application of the law.  Information sent to her (even if it was to her personal email address) was in its proper place of custody – it could be argued.

    But have at it, you still lose with most unbiased prosecutors.

    • #49
  20. Paul Dougherty Member
    Paul Dougherty
    @PaulDougherty

    KC Mulville:Because I have a Top Secret clearance, I have to go through an annoying set of “training” courses that threaten me with consequences of mishandling secret information.

    So much for that.

    Nope, one of the beautiful kicks Dir. Comey put in in the last part of this… presser was the disclaimer that none of what she gets away with should be construed as permissible by people in the future.

    “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.”- Dir. Comey

    Isn’t this just lovely??

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/transcript-fbi-director-james-comeys-statement-on-hillary-clintons-emails/#ixzz4DYDtVWYt

    • #50
  21. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Frank Soto:Comey in brief: While it is clear that Secretary Clinton and her aides violated the law, we don’t think they really meant to. So we’re good.

    What he said was, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” What he meant was, no prosecutor in a Democratic administration would destroy their career by prosecuting the Democratic nominee for President.

    Now, if an enlisted soldier sent one e-mail similar to the 52 e-mail chains Comey references, he would be prosecuted immediately, because that prosecution would come at no personal cost to the prosecutor.

    • #51
  22. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    James Madison:Frank, good luck getting a prosecutor to proceed with that…

    How does this differ from the case against David Patraeus? It seemed no issue getting that indictment.

    • #52
  23. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Paul Dougherty:

    KC Mulville:Because I have a Top Secret clearance, I have to go through an annoying set of “training” courses that threaten me with consequences of mishandling secret information.

    So much for that.

    Nope, one of the beautiful kicks Dir. Comey put in in the last part of this… presser was the disclaimer that none of what she gets away with should be construed as permissible by people in the future.

    Yes. Here is the quote.

    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.

    So, she gets away with it because she is politically powerful

    • #53
  24. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    James Madison:

    Frank Soto:

    James Madison:

    Frank Soto:Comey in brief: While it is clear that Secretary Clinton and her aides violated the law, we don’t think they really meant to. So we’re good.

    Again, proving they did not think they could prove “intent.”

    They don’t have to.

    Sorry Frank, they do for the serious violations. But believe what you will.

    Read Comey’s comments. And understand this, I predicted this 6 months ago. Intent is tricky. And for a serious violation, and almost all felonies are, you need intent.

    It is hard to square Comey’s comments on intent with the gross negligence standard of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f).   –Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor)

    Also:  Mishandling classified information leads to prison (if your name isn’t Clinton)  (or the fate of Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier)

    • #54
  25. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    James Madison:

    Frank Soto:18 USC 793

    (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.

    Couldn’t be clearer. Intent is not required.

    Well, you have to prove she was grossly negligent, and to do that you have show she intended to be so – gross negligence is different from negligence – and this law would say that if she handed out a page from her daily schedule she would be in violation. There is the law and there is the application of the law. Information sent to her (even if it was to her personal email address) was in its proper place of custody – it could be argued.

    But have at it, you still lose with most unbiased prosecutors.

    Did she know information was classified: YES.

    Did she know the link was insecure: YES.

    What more intent is required?

    You want more? OK, what about asking that classification markings be removed?

    • #55
  26. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.
    @IsraelP

    When in the course of human events…

    • #56
  27. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    A-Squared:

    Frank Soto:Comey in brief: While it is clear that Secretary Clinton and her aides violated the law, we don’t think they really meant to. So we’re good.

    What he said was, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” What he meant was, no prosecutor in a Democratic administration would destroy their career by prosecuting the Democratic nominee for President.

    Now, if an enlisted soldier sent one e-mail similar to the 52 e-mail chains Comey references, he would be prosecuted immediately, because that prosecution would come at no personal cost to the prosecutor.

    Do you mean like this U.S. Navy Sailor?

    • #57
  28. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    BrentB67:

    James Madison:Frank, good luck getting a prosecutor to proceed with that…

    How does this differ from the case against David Patraeus? It seemed no issue getting that indictment.

    I recall reading somewhere that the plea bargain with Patraeus made indicting Clinton less likely, not more.

    Can’t remember where, will try that google thing.

    • #58
  29. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    “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.”- Dir. Comey

    Some animals are more equal than others?

    • #59
  30. Karen Humiston Inactive
    Karen Humiston
    @KarenHumiston

    This is the great shame of this presidential election:

    We can be (and are) presented with the most egregious misconduct and unfitness for office on the part of Hillary Clinton, and the response is “So do you want Trump to be elected?”

    We can be (and are) presented with the most egregious misconduct and unfitness for office on the part of Donald Trump, and the response is “So do you want Hillary to be elected?”

    And the race to the bottom continues.

    We are faced with a choice between god-awful and somebody-shoot-me. One of the worst results is that we can’t demand that the opposing candidate be held to high (or even basic) standards, while we hold our own candidate to none at all.

    Hypocrisy runs riot.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.