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. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    The GOP let them put away Libby. This is an example of how the other side plays the game, and our side is Ned Stark.

    • #91
  2. Kwhopper Inactive
    Kwhopper
    @Kwhopper

    James Madison: As for the server, it was set up by a State Department guy and any normal personal would assume it would be protected like the State Department. Yes people asked her to shut down the server, but no one said it was a national security risk and until they do and show why, she was just following the system they set up and were charged with maintaining for her convenience. She was just doing her job – and trying to keep her work load under control with one email address. Huma may have complained, the State Department may have complained, but no one said, “STOP. CRITICAL DANGER.”

    But even the private server wasn’t allowed, and this was known by HC the whole time.

    • #92
  3. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Austin Murrey:

    James Madison:

    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.

    Petraeus participated in the email “drop” system and actually handed over confidential documents. That later fact is intent – flagrante.

    This is by far the silliest argument ever had on Ricochet.

    Austin,

    I don’t like the outcome either – but intent is hard to prove.  David Petreaus proved it…. He handed over documents to his biographer/girlfriend marked Secret or Confidential.  That is all that is required to prove intent.  As for Hillary, she claims she never received nor sent information “marked” classified.

    Sorry.

    • #93
  4. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    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?

    Here is an better comparison since it involves private emails. Now if we can say that the Marine Captain is guilty and  violated military law why pray tell can’t we say that Hillary violated federal law. Oh, wait, I forgot. Some people are more equal than others.

    • #94
  5. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Comey said no one in government knew his decision. President Obama has a compaign event with Hillary today. He expects me to believe Obama didn’t know the result? He expects me to believe Obama risked standing up for a woman who was recommended for indictment the same day? Good grief they think we are stupid.

    • #95
  6. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    James Madison: As for the server, it was set up by a State Department guy and any normal personal would assume it would be protected like the State Department.

    Man Who Set Up Hillary’s Private Server Pleads the Fifth More Than 125 Times

    Yep, totally reasonable people agree this is a totally reasonable server set up totally reasonably offsite with totally reasonable security in place to ensure totally reasonable accountability in light of Hillary’s totally reasonable activities.

    • #96
  7. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    I believe Comey relied on an ancient principle of British law here: the Queen can do no wrong.

    • #97
  8. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Bryan G. Stephens:The GOP let them put away Libby. This is an example of how the other side plays the game, and our side is Ned Stark.

    To some extend, the Scooter Libby case is instructional.  He was convicted by a jury of lying under oath when questioned about a crime the prosecutor knew he did not commit.  It was a political conviction – and very ugly.

    The jury in DC was anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-reason.

    Bush could have pardoned him, but felt that Libby may have contributed to his situation.  Can’t say.

    But, this much is true – Libby’s infraction was much less than Hillary’s. But Hillary had the perfect alibi – the “I never sent nor received information marked classified,” and no one under her would finger her as giving the order to strip the information of its markings.  Position has it privileges.  If she was not running for President with the prospect of handing out great jobs to those who cooperate, she may have been accused.  But alas, no accuser stepped forward.

    • #98
  9. Elephas Americanus Member
    Elephas Americanus
    @ElephasAmericanus

    Inauguration Day – January 20, 2017…

    cersei

    • #99
  10. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    If the it had been a Republican nominee, would the Obama administration’s FBI come to the same conclusion?

    • #100
  11. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Austin Murrey:

    James Madison: As for the server, it was set up by a State Department guy and any normal personal would assume it would be protected like the State Department.

    Man Who Set Up Hillary’s Private Server Pleads the Fifth More Than 125 Times

    Yep, totally reasonable people agree this is a totally reasonable server set up totally reasonably offsite with totally reasonable security in place to ensure totally reasonable accountability in light of Hillary’s totally reasonable activities.

    Austin,

    I don’t believe this.  But there is a difference between they eyes of the law and the public eye.  And the argument that Hillary relied on the experts – What do you mean wipe the server, you mean with a cloth? – is a reasonable one – especially for a DC jury.  She pretends she knows nothing and most people don’t.  She knew exactly what she was doing – and someone who works for her figured it out, another person organized it, and another operated it – all out of her eyesight.  Plausible deniability.

    The comparison to the unjust prosecution of Scooter Libby really is apropos.

    • #101
  12. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    James Madison:

    Bryan G. Stephens:The GOP let them put away Libby. This is an example of how the other side plays the game, and our side is Ned Stark.

    To some extend, the Scooter Libby case is instructional. He was convicted by a jury of lying under oath when questioned about a crime the prosecutor knew he did not commit. It was a political conviction – and very ugly.

    The jury in DC was anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-reason.

    Bush could have pardoned him, but felt that Libby may have contributed to his situation. Can’t say.

    But, this much is true – Libby’s infraction was much less than Hillary’s. But Hillary had the perfect alibi – the “I never sent nor received information marked classified,” and no one under her would fingered her as giving the order to strip the information of its markings. Position has it privileges. If she was not running for President with the prospect of handing our great jobs to those who cooperate, she may have been accused. But alas, not accuser stepped forward.

    Their side protects their own, our side throws our own to them in the hopes we get eaten last.

    If a GOP POTUS ever gets into power, the DOJ should be used to jail as many Dems as possible for their crimes. Stop letting them get away with it.

    • #102
  13. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    Tommy De Seno:Comey said no one in government knew his decision. President Obama has a compaign event with Hillary today. He expects me to believe Obama didn’t know the result? He expects me to believe Obama risked standing up for a woman who was recommended for indictment the same day? Good grief they think we are stupid.

    Rather, they know we cannot do anything about it.

    • #103
  14. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    I’m so tired of hope.

    I can think of only two approaches any more: ignorance or cynicism.

    I’d be happier today if I were one of those people who get interviewed on the street or at the beach and can’t name who we fought in the Vietnam War. “Email server? I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Or I could just bitterly assume that everything is going to wrong all the time, that the fix is in, and there’s no reason to expect anything different.

    • #104
  15. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Seriously, you guys are actually surprised at this? This is what I expected all along. Very powerful people don’t go to prison. Period.

    Comey even rubbed it in, laying out all the things she did while more or less admitting that if you didn’t have the status of a Clinton, or a Kennedy (or a Bush, for that matter), and you committed these acts,  YOU’D be preparing for prison sex right now.

    “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different. ” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

    “Very Rich” and “Very Powerful” are pretty much interchangeable here.

    • #105
  16. Elephas Americanus Member
    Elephas Americanus
    @ElephasAmericanus

    Lily Bart:If the it had been a Republican nominee, would the Obama administration’s FBI come to the same conclusion?

    Of course not – but then again, that person would have been guilty of a capital offense: being a Republican.

    • #106
  17. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    Let’s see, Obama has corrupted the State Department, the IRS, the EPA, the Secret Service, the DOJ, the DOD and now the FBI.  Not much left, is there?

    If I didn’t think that Trump would be every bit as corrupt in using government agencies for personal gain and/or persecuting his enemies I might vote for him but his past actions and statements strongly indicate he would be.

    #neverhillary AND #nevertrump

    • #107
  18. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Joseph Stanko:I believe Comey relied on an ancient principle of British law here: the Queen can do no wrong.

    HerHighness

    • #108
  19. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    James Madison: But there is a difference between they eyes of the law and the public eye. And the argument that Hillary relied on the experts – What do you mean wipe the server, you mean with a cloth? – is a reasonable one – especially for a DC jury. She pretends she knows nothing and most people don’t. She knew exactly what she was doing – and someone who works for her figured it out, another person organized it, and another operated it – all out of here eyesight. Plausible deniability.

    Personally I agree with Frank regarding the letter of the statute (mark that down, Frank and I agreeing is so rare you should buy a lottery ticket and place your jackpot at the roulette table).

    It is entirely possible that Hillary could have been acquitted by a jury – OJ was acquitted by a jury. But it seems clear based on the statute that she meets the burden of proof for indictment, arrest and trial.

    • #109
  20. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Lily Bart:

    Tommy De Seno:Comey said no one in government knew his decision. President Obama has a compaign event with Hillary today. He expects me to believe Obama didn’t know the result? He expects me to believe Obama risked standing up for a woman who was recommended for indictment the same day? Good grief they think we are stupid.

    Rather, they know we cannot do anything about it.

    I think the same about the AG’s statement last week that she will listen to the career prosecutors.  She had to know that the answer was already no recommendation of indictment.

    She still can by they way.  Comey is only making a recommendation.  But she won’t.

    • #110
  21. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Douglas: Seriously, you guys are actually surprised at this?

    Not in the least.  I’d have been surprised, utterly astonished in fact, had she actually been indicted.  This is what I expected all along.

    • #111
  22. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    Michael Farrow: I’m shocked! (not)

    Republicans have spent time building up Comey’s reputation, assuming it would put pressure on Lynch. So now it’s done.

    Republicans have worked on an assumption that this investigation or review, would hurt her. It will not and would not. the 55% of the people who are going to vote for Hillary simply don’t care. The contest for the soul of America has been over for some time. And we have lost.

    • #112
  23. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Austin Murrey:

    James Madison: But there is a difference between they eyes of the law and the public eye. And the argument that Hillary relied on the experts – What do you mean wipe the server, you mean with a cloth? – is a reasonable one – especially for a DC jury. She pretends she knows nothing and most people don’t. She knew exactly what she was doing – and someone who works for her figured it out, another person organized it, and another operated it – all out of here eyesight. Plausible deniability.

    Personally I agree with Frank regarding the letter of the statute (mark that down, Frank and I agreeing is so rare you should buy a lottery ticket and place your jackpot at the roulette table).

    It is entirely possible that Hillary could have been acquitted by a jury – OJ was acquitted by a jury. But it seems clear based on the statute that she meets the burden of proof for indictment, arrest and trial.

    I agree with Frank too – to the letter of the law.  But that is not how it is applied.  Prosecutors have discretion – and it is hard to convict unless you can show absolute evidence of clear intent.  And she may have been indicted (easier threshold), the problem is this: if the prosecutors don’t think they can win the case, they don’t typically indict.

    This is again, how the law is applied – not the law – but the application.

    • #113
  24. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Joseph Stanko:

    Douglas: Seriously, you guys are actually surprised at this?

    Not in the least. I’d have been surprised, utterly astonished in fact, had she actually been indicted. This is what I expected all al

    Me too – I never thought they’d indict her simply because she was able to leverage herself into the Obama cabinet back in 2008. The chances of indicting Hillary for crimes she’s plainly guilty of was nil given the fact that she’s only the latest blatant lawbreaker to get away based solely on political affiliation under the Obama Justice Department.

    • #114
  25. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

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

    LOL @ all the “If Hillary isn’t prosecuted, the FBI will revolt!” stories in the press. Please. The FBI is just another self-perpetuating government bureaucracy, no different than any other. Same goes for the Pentagon. The Right labors under the illusion that “our” favored bureaucracies… military, cops, firemen, etc… are somehow different from “their” bureaucracies. In the end, they all want the same thing: to grow themselves and be untouchable.

    • #115
  26. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    JM,

    I think the indictment, which I believe you said you felt was easy to get is much different than a guilty verdict.

    I expect Mrs. Clinton would be tried before a jury of her peers and if the standard of guilt not met in their eyes she should enjoy acquittal. In my mind that is due process.

    The first part of the process is bringing the indictment. Am I explaining/understanding correctly?

    • #116
  27. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    C’mon people, be reasonable.  Do you really expect poor granny Clinton to carry around 2 different phones just to protect some measly state secrets?

    • #117
  28. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    FBI rewrites the law according Andrew McCarthy here.

    In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

    • #118
  29. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    The United States has become nothing but a third-world kleptocracy.

    • #119
  30. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    It is proven again that the Clinton’s are the penicillin-resistant syphillis of American politics. Nothing can get rid of them.

    As my grandfather Clarence would say: I am so angry I could spit.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.