There are 213 comments.

1. Inactive
   Frozen Chosen

   @FrozenChosen

   2:34 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   livingthehighlife: How will this demoralize the FBI agents? What sort of signal does this send to the great men and women who spend hundreds of boring hours poring over evidence?

   The Clintons are untouchable

2. Inactive
   James Gawron

   @JamesGawron

   2:43 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Misthiocracy:

   James Gawron:Mis,

   You’ve got an interesting theory. Did you see this?

   [Video: Comey makes the case…]

   Regards,

   Jim

   Indeed! The whole tone of his statement comes across (for me, anyways) as, “here’s all the evidence and the myriad reasons, item-by-item and in great detail, why there’s clearly a prima facia case for prosecution under the statute.”

   It totally feels like he’s building up a case and that the punchline will be that he’s recommending prosecution but, like the twist at the very last second of an M. Night Shyamalan movie, ‘we’ have decided (not ‘I’, but ‘we’) not to recommend prosecution because ‘reasons’.

   If his goal was truly to carry water for Clinton and to exonerate her in the court of public opinion, he could hardly have chosen a worse way to do it.

   That’s why I’m inclined to want to believe that laying all the prima facia evidence out on the table, so to speak, was a middle-finger at Clinton, rather than a middle-finger at the American public.

   But, again, I know nothing of the man.

   Mis,

   He’s the prisoner being forced to confess his “crime” but signaling to his own people that it’s all nonsense.

   Could be.

   Regards,

   Jim

3. Coolidge
   Fake John/Jane Galt

   @FakeJohnJaneGalt

   2:54 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Did anybody really expect anything different than this outcome?  If so you were deceiving yourself.  These guys are cops, the only difference between a cop and a crook is a badge.  HRC is part of the government establishment.  She does not follow laws, she makes them, and uses them against others for her own gain.

4. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   2:56 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Misthiocracy:

   Paul Dougherty:Why not just come out and say “We are recommending to not prosecute”? What is the point of first making the case for guilt and then saying they will not prosecute. I wish he would have spent more time on the case to not prosecute. It seems like Mr. Comey just gave us the big middle finger. Unnecessary.

   I know nothing about the man’s history. Is there anything in his background that might suggest that maybe he actually loathes the decision, that he was coerced into it, and that making the case for guilt was sorta like a P.O.W. crossing their fingers when ordered to spout enemy propaganda for the cameras?

   Knowing nothing about the man, I’m inclined to want to believe that if Comey was truly a feckless crapweasel, he would have simply hidden behind the usual bureaucratic boilerplate about lack of evidence/unlikelihood of securing a conviction/yadda yadda yadda. It’s often nonsense, but it works because even though you can disagree with their interpretation of the facts, at the end of the day it is their decision.

   By contrast, I’ve never heard of a prosecutor/investigator saying “oh, yeah, we could totally prove that they violated the statute, but we’re not going to prosecute because they didn’t really mean it”.

   But, again, I know nothing of the man.

   It really does appear this way.

5. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   2:58 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Fake John/Jane Galt:Did anybody really expect anything different than this outcome? If so you were deceiving yourself. These guys are cops, the only difference between a cop and a crook is a badge. HRC is part of the government establishment. She does not follow laws, she makes them, and uses them against others for her own gain.

   So the only way out of this hell is to make certain Clinton is not elected POTUS.

   Vote Trump!

6. Member
   Full Size Tabby

   @FullSizeTabby

   3:18 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Marion Evans:Dear Loretta

   It was great to see you the other day at the airport. I really enjoyed chatting about our “grandchildren” ;)

   Anyway, it is important to be loyal to our “grandchildren” (LOL, gets me every time) as they may be helpful to us in the future.

   Take care,

   Bill.

   Maybe the “grandchildren” they were discussing were the grandchildren that Comey wouldn’t have because his children are all being held hostage by the Clintons? (Might as well go for outlandish conspiracy theories, since little else makes sense.)

7. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   3:21 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Full Size Tabby: (Might as well go for outlandish conspiracy theories, since little else makes sense.)

   It is somewhat surprising that this news event may even be discussed here on Ricochet considering our Code of Conduct.

8. Member
   RightAngles

   @RightAngles

   3:24 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Misthiocracy:

   I know nothing about the man’s history. Is there anything in his background that might suggest that maybe he actually loathes the decision, that he was coerced into it, and that making the case for guilt was sorta like a P.O.W. crossing their fingers when ordered to spout enemy propaganda for the cameras?

   Knowing nothing about the man, I’m inclined to want to believe that if Comey was truly a feckless crapweasel, he would have simply hidden behind the usual bureaucratic boilerplate about lack of evidence/unlikelihood of securing a conviction/yadda yadda yadda. It’s often nonsense, but it works because even though you can disagree with their interpretation of the facts, at the end of the day it is their decision.

   … It’s so weird, and so outside the usual prosecutorial/investigative playbook, it’s just baffling.

   But, again, I know nothing of the man.

   I’ve heard only praise from people I respect and admire. Everyone said he’s apolitical and a man of integrity who will follow the law. I agree it was weird the way he raked her over the coals and followed with “no indictment.” Like he was making some kind of hidden hostage video statement. Whatever it was, he should resign in protest. (Or disgrace?)

9. Coolidge
   Fake John/Jane Galt

   @FakeJohnJaneGalt

   3:25 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

   Bob Thompson:

   Fake John/Jane Galt:Did anybody really expect anything different than this outcome? If so you were deceiving yourself. These guys are cops, the only difference between a cop and a crook is a badge. HRC is part of the government establishment. She does not follow laws, she makes them, and uses them against others for her own gain.

   So the only way out of this hell is to make certain Clinton is not elected POTUS.

   Vote Trump!

   That sounds good and I wish him luck but it is looking like HRC is going to win in a landslide.  It would not surprise me if she ends up taking it in the largest POTUS win in history.

10. Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt

    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    3:28 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    RightAngles: I’ve heard only praise from people I respect and admire. Everyone said he’s apolitical and a man of integrity who will follow the law. I agree it was weird the way he raked her over the coals and followed with “no indictment.” Like he was making some kind of hidden hostage video statement. Whatever it was, he should resign in protest. (Or disgrace?)

    He is a career LEO and bureaucrat.  He would not have been given this case if the results were not predictable.  He has his job because he gets the results his bosses want, when they want them, how they want them.  He just proved that.

11. Member
    Paul A. Rahe

    @PaulARahe

    3:59 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    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.

    This is nonsense. Intent is not required for negligence. Carelessness is, and even Comey admits that they were “extremely careless.”

12. Member
    Misthiocracy

    @Misthiocracy

    

    4:09 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    RightAngles: I’ve heard only praise from people I respect and admire. Everyone said he’s apolitical and a man of integrity who will follow the law. I agree it was weird the way he raked her over the coals and followed with “no indictment.” Like he was making some kind of hidden hostage video statement. Whatever it was, he should resign in protest. (Or disgrace?)

    Ordinarily I would agree, however (and at the risk of violating the CoC rule about conspiracy theories) given this administration’s history of “Chicago-style” politics, Alinskyism, and affiliation with actual honest-to-goodness terrorists like Bill Ayers, I’m hesitant to condemn the man as a coward without knowing all the facts.

    At the end of the day, it could certainly be that he’s simply yet another feckless crapweasel. It’s just … something about his delivery when I watch the video makes me want to believe otherwise.

13. Member
    Matt Bartle

    @MattBartle

    

    4:22 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    RightAngles: I’ve heard only praise from people I respect and admire. Everyone said he’s apolitical and a man of integrity who will follow the law.

    Yeah, that’s what they said about the guy working the Valerie Plame case. Straight-shooter, by the book. Everything on the up-and-up. Then he spends years chasing Bush & Co. when he already knew where her name came from.

    Come to think of it, that was the State Dept. too, wasn’t it?

14. Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko

    @JosephStanko

    

    4:33 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    James Madison:

    Frank Soto:

    James Madison:

     

    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.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I did read the transcript and Comey said:

    Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system in violation of a federal statute that makes it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

    It sounds to me like Comey doesn’t think you need to prove intent, he says either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.  If he thought gross negligence always requires proof of intent, he should have said “makes it a felony to mishandle classified information both intentionally and in a grossly negligent way.”

15. Member
    Paul Dougherty

    @PaulDougherty

    4:50 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Maybe Dir. Comey is a Mark Anthony figure, directed to not indict while also not whipping up the opposition in a frenzy bent on revenge?

    Well done, Mr. Comey.

16. Member
    Knotwise the Poet

    @KnotwisethePoet

    4:59 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    

17. Member
    Bob Thompson

    @BobThompson

    6:38 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Bob Thompson:

    James Madison:

    I think that Comey was tripping all over himself in calling her careless and reckless. He was trying to preserve his reputation.

    But her counsel would say, she had no way of knowing and surely you cannot believe the Secretary of State would dream of disclosing information or leaving for others to find even if she knew it was classified. After all, the guy at State set up her server – proving the best government standards were applied. He is the culprit.

    Getting an indictment is hard – but not that hard. Getting a conviction on intent – 18U.S.C. Sec. 793(f) or not – is very, very hard.

    How can someone who has done what Comey has described not have her ‘security clearance’ pulled, at a minimum? How can someone with an established record of carelessness and recklessness in the handling of classified material retain a security clearance? Can the POTUS operate effectively as CoC without a security clearance?

    Waiting to hear, James, what do we do here. What does it take to disqualify someone for the Presidency?

18. Inactive
    A-Squared

    @ASquared

    6:51 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Bob Thompson:

     

    How can someone who has done what Comey has described not have her ‘security clearance’ pulled, at a minimum? How can someone with an established record of carelessness and recklessness in the handling of classified material retain a security clearance? Can the POTUS operate effectively as CoC without a security clearance?

    She will have her security clearance as President, if only because as President, she can declassify anything she wants. So, if someone tried to pull her clearance, she could just declassify anything she wanted and that would be MUCH worse than giving her clearance.

    Her aides, eg, Huma, might lose their clearance, but they will just wind up with a high-paying CGI gig still working for Hillary.

19. Member
    Bob Thompson

    @BobThompson

    6:54 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    A-Squared:

    Bob Thompson:

    How can someone who has done what Comey has described not have her ‘security clearance’ pulled, at a minimum? How can someone with an established record of carelessness and recklessness in the handling of classified material retain a security clearance? Can the POTUS operate effectively as CoC without a security clearance?

    She will have her security clearance as President, if only because as President, she can declassify anything she wants. So, if someone tried to pull her clearance, she could just declassify anything she wanted and that would be MUCH worse than giving her clearance.

    I get that. I’m suggesting that this should be a monster campaign issue because her judgement is as bad as it gets.

20. Member
    Bob Thompson

    @BobThompson

    6:57 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    A-Squared:

    Bob Thompson:

    How can someone who has done what Comey has described not have her ‘security clearance’ pulled, at a minimum? How can someone with an established record of carelessness and recklessness in the handling of classified material retain a security clearance? Can the POTUS operate effectively as CoC without a security clearance?

    She will have her security clearance as President, if only because as President, she can declassify anything she wants. So, if someone tried to pull her clearance, she could just declassify anything she wanted and that would be MUCH worse than giving her clearance.

    Her aides, eg, Huma, might lose their clearance, but they will just wind up with a high-paying CGI gig still working for Hillary.

    Clinton’s clearance should be pulled now and if she wins the election she can get it back.

21. Member
    Misthiocracy

    @Misthiocracy

    

    8:11 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Looks like I wasn’t the only one to get the impression that Comey comes across in the video like a Vietnam POW:

    

    http://spectator.org/comeys-hanoi-confession/

22. Inactive
    Pugshot

    @Pugshot

    8:38 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    It is possible that Comey honestly believes that the evidence would not support an indictment (although if it’s a close call, the normal practice would be to recommend indictment and have the prosecutor run it by a grand jury and see what the grand jurors think). It’s also possible that Comey either knew that if he simply made a recommendation to DoJ that nothing would come of it or that he’d been “reliably informed” that such was the case. Assuming that possibility, and assuming as Andrew McCarthy has stated, that Comey is a man of high character, his decision to give a statement that makes the case for indictment and demonstrates Clinton’s repeated lies was, in his judgment, the best that he could do. In other words, knowing that DoJ would not act on a recommendation to indict, he took advantage of his opportunity to let everyone know exactly what a lying crap-weasel HRC is. One may certainly argue that the more honorable course would be to detail the results of the investigation, recommend an indictment, and then resign if DoJ refused to at least take the case to a grand jury. Or maybe the reports of Comey’s integrity were highly overstated.

23. Inactive
    Brian Watt

    @BrianWatt

    8:50 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Pugshot:It is possible that Comey honestly believes that the evidence would not support an indictment (although if it’s a close call, the normal practice would be to recommend indictment and have the prosecutor run it by a grand jury and see what the grand jurors think). It’s also possible that Comey either knew that if he simply made a recommendation to DoJ that nothing would come of it or that he’d been “reliably informed” that such was the case. Assuming that possibility, and assuming as Andrew McCarthy has stated, that Comey is a man of high character, his decision to give a statement that makes the case for indictment and demonstrates Clinton’s repeated lies was, in his judgment, the best that he could do. In other words, knowing that DoJ would not act on a recommendation to indict, he took advantage of his opportunity to let everyone know exactly what a lying crap-weasel HRC is. One may certainly argue that the more honorable course would be to detail the results of the investigation, recommend an indictment, and then resign if DoJ refused to at least take the case to a grand jury. Or maybe the reports of Comey’s integrity were highly overstated.

    I’m inclined, regrettably, to embrace your last sentence. There seems to be no shortage of theories cropping up on why Comey did what he did and the way in which he did it. One is that he’s coyly conveying just how corrupt Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration and the DoJ are. The problem with this theory is that millions of Americans already knew this to be the case (even Hillary supporters) and several million other Americans don’t seem to care or are willing to accept Hillary as POTUS because it’s time to have a woman president, or the several millions not paying attention to politics at all and couldn’t even tell you who Loretta Lynch or James Comey are. They could immediately identify Lady Gaga or Johnny Depp or Kim Kardashian though because what happens in their respective celebrity lives is much more important than the fate of the republic.

24. Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko

    @JosephStanko

    

    9:07 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Pugshot: It is possible that Comey honestly believes that the evidence would not support an indictment (although if it’s a close call, the normal practice would be to recommend indictment and have the prosecutor run it by a grand jury and see what the grand jurors think).

    Perhaps he felt that if the case was marginal it would be inappropriate to indict a presidential candidate, that it is more appropriate to adjudicate the case in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box.

25. Thatcher
    goldwaterwoman

    @goldwaterwoman

    10:34 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Nick Stuart:Just a reminder, it will be Trump or Clinton making DOJ appointments, overseeing national security, etc. Who do you prefer?

    Trump respects this country far too much to do such a horrible thing.

26. Thatcher
    goldwaterwoman

    @goldwaterwoman

    11:42 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 5, 2016

    Fake John/Jane Galt:

    Bob Thompson:

    Fake John/Jane Galt:Did anybody really expect anything different than this outcome? If so you were deceiving yourself. These guys are cops, the only difference between a cop and a crook is a badge. HRC is part of the government establishment. She does not follow laws, she makes them, and uses them against others for her own gain.

    So the only way out of this hell is to make certain Clinton is not elected POTUS.

    Vote Trump!

    That sounds good and I wish him luck but it is looking like HRC is going to win in a landslide. It would not surprise me if she ends up taking it in the largest POTUS win in history.

    Don’t bet on it.

27. Member
    Kozak

    @Kozak

    

    4:05 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 6, 2016

    James Gawron:Comey is full of it. This is going to be a real test. Let’s see who in the media has the guts to call out Comey on this nonsense.

    You are joking, right?

28. Member
    Kozak

    @Kozak

    

    4:08 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 6, 2016

    Frozen Chosen:

    livingthehighlife: How will this demoralize the FBI agents? What sort of signal does this send to the great men and women who spend hundreds of boring hours poring over evidence?

    The Clintons are untouchable

    Maybe the FBI agents will respond with their own “Ferguson Effect”.

    Just like the police in Chicago, New York, Baltimore, they will show up for work, do their time, and just not bother to do their jobs…..

29. Member
    Kozak

    @Kozak

    

    4:09 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 6, 2016

    Fake John/Jane Galt:Did anybody really expect anything different than this outcome? If so you were deceiving yourself. These guys are cops, the only difference between a cop and a crook is a badge. HRC is part of the government establishment. She does not follow laws, she makes them, and uses them against others for her own gain.

    Not really. I had a tiny little flicker of hope.  Maybe some part of FedGov isn’t totally corrupt.  It’s been extinguished.

30. Member
    Kozak

    @Kozak

    

    4:13 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 6, 2016

    A-Squared:She will have her security clearance as President, if only because as President, she can declassify anything she wants. So, if someone tried to pull her clearance, she could just declassify anything she wanted and that would be MUCH worse than giving her clearance.

    Considering Obama’s past and his associations, he would never have gotten a security clearance.  Being elected POTUS makes it all a mute point.