Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Conservatives are upset the FBI’s recommends no prosecution of Hillary for her email crimes. They say the fix was in, and this line proves it: “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.”
In other words: crimes that are okay for Hillary to commit, are not okay for others to commit. So don’t worry, our national security will remain safe from betrayal by Little People.
Any reasonable person would know they were committing a crime, probably treason. But no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. Why is that? Well because they know that the Clinton’s are untouchable, and that The Won will grant a pardon if they do try to bring it, and that the person bringing the case will be utterly destroyed in the vendetta that Shrillery will launch on them; see Ken Starr.
But a reasonable prosecutor and reasonable federal agents persecuted some previously unknown shlep for a video that was used as the excuse of the death of the Ambassador in Benghazi. In a pre-planned terrorist attack, that can never be called that because, among other things, it may have been planned based on information obtained from Hillery’s closet server.
Joe Doakes
That whole “of, by and for the people” thing is rapidly fading from “inaccurate” to “cruel joke”.
There’s a meme pic floating around that I put in comments to SEVERAL people’s FB posts about Comey’s presser saying he wasn’t going to prosecute. It’s a picture of him. On top it says “She’s guilty as hell” and on the bottom it says “But I don’t want to die mysteriously and suddenly”.
Given the Clinton Body Count, I’d say Comey is a wise man.
Ted Stevens is a good counter-example, one which no doubt occurred to Comey and Lynch. Were Comey and Lynch to indict Hilary, she would likely either resign or lose the election, then be found guilty of nothing worse than doing part of her job poorly. The recriminations would make the aftermath of Bush v. Gore look tame. The prosecutors who brought down Stevens were badly stained by that mess. What would have happened to Comey and Lynch, the people who got Trump elected?
then be found guilty of nothing worse than doing part of her job poorly.
Obtuse does not begin to describe eTASS. But then again, people’s lives never mattered to the likes of him. And people did die because of how Shrillery did her job. And the laws she deliberateley broke, and the perjury she committed.
How many people die on Steven’s watch, eTASS? Your analogy is as misplaced as your brain.
The Judicial authorities (the FBI and the Justice Dept. are part of the Executive Branch, but are special because of their link to the Judicial Branch) are deeply reluctant to indict a politician who is running for office, because it circumvents the democratic process for a judicial one, and thus negates the democratic process. Not indicting is also political, but less so. Thus, before an election, their first instinct is to provide a full accounting to the voters, and let the voters decide. Yes, that means a politician running for office is treated differently. But arresting the leading candidate for an elected office? That would be scandalous even in Russia, Iran, or China. It would raise constitutional crisis flags in the US. I think it very likely they would have done the same if this was a Republican administration, and Republican appointees. This is their attempt to be as professional as possible. To the extent that this action has political effect, to indict would have far more effect; that calculation is what leads us to where we are today.
The Democratic party might be better off if they had indicted her, and let Biden take the nomination. I don’t think political advantage is the primary driver here. Comer and Lynn are seeking to minimize their exposure by limiting their impact on the democratic process.
For tap dancing moonbats, I offer the following lesson.
Was Clinton’s crime nothing more than a matter of doing part of her job poorly? Let’s check yesterday’s Congressional record.
U.S. Congressman Jason Chaffetz: “Director Comey, did Secretary Clinton jeopardize national security?”
FBI Director James Comey: “Yes”
In a world defined by mealy-mouthed, self-serving reprobates, it just doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Comer and Lynn are seeking to minimize their exposure by limiting their impact on the democratic process.
This is classic eTASS. Rule of Law does not mean anything to him. Nothing. Nada. Shrillery is guilty as sin based on Comey’s own words, and she skates. Whether there is an election going on or not should not matter – she should be in jail. Rule of Law is NOT a democratic process. But chances of eTASS getting this simple concept are none, not even slim.
James Comey is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. He has served as Deputy Attorney General, under Bush, served as US Attorney New York, and serves as the Director of the FBI.
It’s not surprising that JPA and Swiftee are STiD’s in-house “instant legal experts” bloviating on the internet about this. ;^)
I agree with Emery. If Comey was going to indict Hillary, he should have done so before the primaries began. After the first primary, Hillary’s wrongdoing became a political issue as much as a criminal issue. You don’t want the FBI to decide who should or should not become president. Comey told the American people what Hillary did. The American people will be her judge.
And your qualifications on the legal matter, Emeroid? We know JD is a JD, the swift one is a enginerd, but your qualifications are what exactly?
I’ve done a couple of projects requiring security clearance. Nothing too high, mind you, and even I knew that copying what Her Royal Clintoness did would have gotten me canned and banned at the least and in the pokey more likely.
I think it’s time to change the Great Seal of the United States from an eagle clutching an olive branch and 13 arrows to a monkey clutching a banana. It’d be far more appropriate for our present rule of (un)law.
I’ll be sure Hilary is well ahead of Trump before voting Libertarian.
I think that what got Emery’s undies in a wad was that I attributed the quotes I cut, pasted and ground all up in his feral snout. Went against his nature.
Well that’s tuff; you can bloviate me, dirtbag.
Regarding Ted Stevens, the problem wasn’t the prosecution, but rather that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence that the defense would have been able to use to get charges dismissed and…..win the election.
Not quite sure what kind of exculpatory evidence would do that for Hilliary. But agreed with others that the indictments should have been made months ago. the wait is just embarrassing. Plus, the other crimes she’s clearly done–perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators–somehow mysteriously evaded Comey’s view.
Something is going on, and it stinks.
Swiftee:
Representative Jason Chaffetz graduated with a BA in Communications.
Who does the public think is more qualified to know and make decisions about law, evidence, and prosecution?
Representative Caffetz’ sarcastic tone and repeated questioning of Mr. Comey was embarrassing to say the least. He made himself look like a knucklehead trying to win a game that he has no business or experience playing.
Comey’s four plus hours of testimony is to be commended. His decision regarding this email matter is to be commended.
Representative Chaffetz’ appearance will go down as a once again demonstration of lack of reason and respect from a Republican member of Congress who is way overpayed by taxpayers.
Yeah, the public should probably pay no attention to their lying eyes, and let the players credentials decide the issue.
Idiot.
We really shouldn’t sweat the qualifications of Chaffetz and others that much, as a key principle (historically at least) of Anglo-American law is that it should be perspicuous; that is, you should not need to pay a bunch of billable hours to understand it.
And writing as someone who’s done work in defense, the rules for classified information, ITAR, and the like are really pretty simple. You don’t put information in a place where those without clearance are likely to see it, period. Certain kids of information about intelligence and weapons systems are always classified. No way a Yale trained lawyer like Hilliary didn’t understand this. Ignore it, yes, but she knew the drill.
(interesting side note; Comey also played a part in the exoneration of Sandy “Burglar” Berger for about the same crimes)
Emery, your arguments are unpersuasive because you substitute logical fallacies for intellectual analysis.
Attacking Chaffetz’ credentials is the ad hominem logical fallacy. It tells me something about Chaffetz credentials, but not whether Chaffetz’s questions were right or wrong.
Touting Comey’s credentials is the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy. It tells me something about Comey’s credentials, but not whether Comey’s decision was right or wrong.
Comey did not say “Our investigation is complete but I won’t reveal the conclusion to avoid tainting the election. ” We could argue whether that would be honorable (avoid election tampering) or despicable (hiding relevant facts from the voters) but it’s moot because that’s not what happened. Comey said “Hillary broke the law but shouldn’t be punished.” That’s fundamentally different.
You’ll never see me defending Clinton. Although I will call a political goat rodeo when I see one.
U.S. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (B.A., Communications, BYU) : Director Comey, did Secretary Clinton jeopardize national security?
FBI Director James Comey (B.S., Chemistry, College of William and Mary; J.D. University of Chicago Law School): Yes
Why yes, Emery, now I see how their respective academic credentials made all the difference there, you fucking dimwit. Thanks for the bloviation.
eTASS is nothing but one big fallacy.
Thank you JD for articulating it so well.
Bento, politics should never trump Rule of Law.
Oh puh-lease. So predictable, Republicans are wetting their pants at the thought of actually having to face Clinton in November. Remember what Kevin McCarthy said: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”
With Donald Trump at the top of their ticket, the GOP will do anything under the sun to try to stop this election from happening. Politics run amok.
So on top of all other maladies and deficiencies of eTASS’ brain, we now know he also wears a tinfoil hat. Now he wants us to believe Shrillary is innocent as a baby rat and prosecution of her sins is strictly politically motivated. I guess he does not believe his lying eyes and ears. I do not know who is more obturse – eTASS or DG. It is a close call.
Most entertaining election cycle in my lifetime!
By JPA’s metics, the election in November will determine Clinton’s guilt or malfeasance. Which I believe was the point of Comey’s position.
election in November will determine Clinton’s guilt or malfeasance.
I could live with that. But the truth is, for the leftist reprobates, the election will be a matter of getting enough scumbags to the polls to vote for Hillary.
Let us look at the actions of leftist reprobates vs the actions of the GOP.
The leftist candidate gets called out by the FBI for incompetence and fecklessness in office that puts national security at risk. Leftist reprobates assure the public that feckless liar will be the next POTUS, so suck it.
An ignorant buffoon claws his way to the top of the GOP ticket. He makes ridiculous promises, some of which are clearly unconstitutional. The leadership tries to educate and moderate him and the rank and file start plotting a coup for the convention to get rid of him.
The success of the Democrat party rests with the effectiveness of our schools to turn out blithering, America hating idiots and wards of the state.
By JPA’s metics, the election in November will determine Clinton’s guilt or malfeasance. Which I believe was the point of Comey’s position.
eTASS, you blithering idiot! Once again you are putting words in my keyboard strokes. I have never, ever said that. I have been pointing out that was YOUR position because you agreed with Comey. And apparently now voices under the tin foil hat tell you that the whole thing Clinton e-mail scandal was invented by GOP will do anything under the sun to try to stop this election from happening. Your acceptance of Clinton’s exoneration flies in the face of the Rule of Law. But then Rule of Law is just another abstract construct you will never get.