Countdown til Hillary is Officially off the Hook for violating NDA

[clenz]

I believe his exact words were

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.

[Ibanez]

Thanks for the compliments, but the FBI misread a very clear statute that permits indictments for the very type of grossly negligent conduct that Comey recognized in his speech. Heck (to quote Gannon), I just try business cases, and even I would have taken a crack at prosecuting Hildabeast on those facts.

Sad day for the American legal system.

What I'm seeing is that former prosecutors who tend to be Republican think it's an outrage while former prosecutors who tend to be Democrat think it's reasonable. Like I'm watching CNN right now and they have this former Federal Prosecutor on CNN Jeffery Toobin saying it's a specific intent crime and she had to know she was dealing with Classified Information in order to be prosecuted. And he's citing the way Courts have interpreted the law.

I suspect he's probably got a Democrat lean but I don't know. Anyway this idea that intent is required seems to be in dispute. I'm seeing some say it is and some say it isn't.

Biggest thing is Comey, who appears qualified as anyone to say, said they didn't have sufficient evidence to charge.

And again: Before he gave them a result they didn't like Republicans were singing his praises.

If she didn't know, as Secretary of State, that she was sending/receiving classified information, then she's not only unfit...she's woefully ignorant.

[Ivytalk]

Jeffrey **** Toobin is the biggest liberal asshole in the legal commentariat. And he's wrong about it being a specific intent crime. You are so far up Hillary's bunghole that even forceps couldn't get you out.

He's not the only one I've seen say that sort of thing. And there's the fact that Comey said it.

You said that criminal law is not really your thing. But now you're saying Toobin is wrong about a criminal law question even though he's a former Federal prosecutor. Or is that not true?

Having said that, yes, I know that other former Federal prosecutors have disagreed with Tobin. But Comey is himself a former Federal prosecutor. There certainly seems to be disagreement on this issue.

You don't need a law degree to read a statute. The fact is that the FBI pussied out from pursuing the gross negligence charge that was plainly available. Your moral equivalence is unpersuasive. Even Donald Trump has a better understanding of the statute than you do.

[Skjellyfetti]

A preemptive apology to baldy for posting such a lunatic left wing source.

SECRECY IS A VIRTUAL religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive manner — at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been widely noted, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined. Secrecy in D.C. is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said in 2010, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying, ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top-secret NSA classification marking.”

People who leak to media outlets for the selfless purpose of informing the public — Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Drake, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden — face decades in prison. Those who leak for more ignoble and self-serving ends — such as enabling hagiography (Leon Panetta, David Petraeus) or ingratiating oneself to one’s mistress (Petraeus) — face career destruction, though they are usually spared if they are sufficiently Important-in-D.C. For low-level, powerless Nobodies-in-D.C., even the mere mishandling of classified information — without any intent to leak but merely to, say, work from home — has resulted in criminal prosecution, career destruction, and the permanent loss of security clearance.

This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today — just in time to save Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. FBI Director James Comey, an Obama appointee who served in the Bush DOJ, held a press conference earlier this afternoon in which he condemned Clinton on the ground that she and her colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” including top-secret material.

below the fold:

Spoiler: show

Comey also detailed that her key public statements defending her conduct — i.e., that she never sent classified information over her personal email account and had turned over all “work-related” emails to the State Department — were utterly false; insisted “that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position … should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation”; and argued that she endangered national security because of the possibility “that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.” Comey also noted that others who have done what Clinton did “are often subject to security or administrative sanctions” — such as demotion, career harm, or loss of security clearance.

Despite all of these highly incriminating findings, Comey explained, the FBI is recommending to the Justice Department that Clinton not be charged with any crime. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” To justify this claim, Comey cited “the context of a person’s actions” and her “intent.” In other words, there is evidence that she did exactly what the criminal law prohibits, but it was more negligent and careless than malicious and deliberate.

Looked at in isolation, I have no particular objection to this decision. In fact, I agree with it: I don’t think what Clinton did rose to the level of criminality, and if I were in the Justice Department, I would not want to see her prosecuted for it. I do think there was malignant intent: Using a personal email account and installing a home server always seemed to be designed, at least in part, to control her communications and hide them from FOIA and similar disclosure obligations. As the New York Times noted in May about a highly incriminating report from the State Department’s own Auditor General: “Emails disclosed in the report made it clear that she worried that personal emails could be publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Moreover, Comey expressly found that — contrary to her repeated statements — “the FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.” The Inspector General’s report similarly, in the words of the NYT, “undermined some of Mrs. Clinton’s previous statements defending her use of the server.” Still, charging someone with a felony requires more than lying or unethical motives; it should require a clear intent to break the law along with substantial intended harm, none of which is sufficiently present here.

But this case does not exist in isolation. It exists in a political climate where secrecy is regarded as the highest end, where people have their lives destroyed for the most trivial — or, worse, the most well-intentioned — violations of secrecy laws, even in the absence of any evidence of harm or malignant intent. And these are injustices that Hillary Clinton and most of her stalwart Democratic followers have never once opposed — but rather enthusiastically cheered. In 2011, Army Private Chelsea Manning was charged with multiple felonies and faced decades in prison for leaking documents that she firmly believed the public had the right to see; unlike the documents Clinton recklessly mishandled, none of those was top secret. Nonetheless, this is what then-Secretary Clinton said in justifying her prosecution:

I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so.

Comey’s announcement also takes place in a society that imprisons more of its citizens than any other in the world by far, for more trivial offenses than any Western nation — overwhelmingly when they are poor or otherwise marginalized due to their race or ethnicity. The sort of leniency and mercy and prosecutorial restraint Comey extended today to Hillary Clinton is simply unavailable for most Americans.

What happened here is glaringly obvious. It is the tawdry byproduct of a criminal justice mentality in which — as I documented in my 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some — those who wield the greatest political and economic power are virtually exempt from the rule of law even when they commit the most egregious crimes, while only those who are powerless and marginalized are harshly punished, often for the most trivial transgressions.

Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did — recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and work on top-secret information on it, then outright lie to the public about it when they were caught — they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection. But Hillary Clinton is the opposite of unimportant. She’s the multimillionaire former first lady, senator from New York, and secretary of state, supported by virtually the entire political, financial, and media establishment to be the next president, arguably the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

Like the Wall Street tycoons whose systemic fraud triggered the 2008 global financial crisis, and like the military and political officials who instituted a worldwide regime of torture, Hillary Clinton is too important to be treated the same as everyone else under the law. “Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” Virginia defense attorney Edward MacMahon told Politico last year about secrecy prosecutions. Washington defense attorney Abbe Lowell has similarly denounced the “profound double standard” governing how the Obama DOJ prosecutes secrecy cases: “Lower-level employees are prosecuted … because they are easy targets and lack the resources and political connections to fight back.”

The fact that Clinton is who she is undoubtedly is what caused the FBI to accord her the massive benefit of the doubt when assessing her motives, when finding nothing that was — in the words of Comey — “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

But a system that accords treatment based on who someone is, rather than what they’ve done, is the opposite of one conducted under the rule of law. It is, instead, one of systemic privilege. As Thomas Jefferson put it in a 1784 letter to George Washington, the ultimate foundation of any constitutional order is “the denial of every preeminence.” Hillary Clinton has long been the beneficiary of this systemic privilege in so many ways, and today, she received her biggest gift from it yet.

The Obama-appointed FBI director gave a press conference showing that she recklessly handled top-secret information, engaged in conduct prohibited by law, and lied about it repeatedly to the public. But she won’t be prosecuted or imprisoned for any of that, so Democrats are celebrating. But if there is to be anything positive that can come from this lowly affair, perhaps Democrats might start demanding the same reasonable leniency and prosecutorial restraint for everyone else who isn’t Hillary Clinton.

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/was ... y-clinton/

[HI54UNI]

Interesting that the interview with Hilldog and the FBI happens on Saturday of a holiday weekend and on Tuesday morning they announce no charges. Seems a little expeditious doesn't it?

[houndawg]

But according to dumbass houndie, hilldog was too smart to get caught.

Bottom line: Hillary skates, conks look as inept as ever, blow gift-wrapped Presidency.

No less an authority on the bureaucratic mind than our very own CID the Sensible Moderate has said on the record that Comey, a Republican, is a straight-shooter who doesn't play politics and will let the chips fall where they may. He probably has a good idea about what the straight-shooting non-politician's ( ) next job will be in the Clinton administration.

Nice call bro, right up there with Z's expertise on suitability of VP candidates.

[houndawg]

Interesting that the interview with Hilldog and the FBI happens on Saturday of a holiday weekend and on Tuesday morning they announce no charges. Seems a little expeditious doesn't it?

Its a coincidence. Comey is a straight-shooter who eschews politics and lets the chips fall where they may.

[houndawg]

That's the exact opposite of that, if you claim that for anyone else you would throw the book at them, but for Clinton you're going to look the other way is paramount to it being a political decision.

The set up is that both sides said Comey is a straight shooter and the FBI can be relied upon to provide an honest determination. The narrative was that the FBI was going to recommend charges and the Justice Department was going to opt not to charge. THAT was the "political" angle.

But now the guy both sides said is a straight shooter said charges are not justified.

That guy and Lynch are due for some meteoric rise in their careers if Clinton wins.

Clintons love them some straight-shooting non-politicians.

[houndawg]

Ok, to summarize, Hillary broke the law, but there's no clear evidence that she meant to do so.

She was extremely careless with the handling of 100+ classified emails exposing our secrets to "Foreign Actors", but didn't really leave clear evidence that she wanted to do so.

A person engaging in the behavior above should not avoid consequences for their actions, but the recommendation is that no charges be brought.

WTF? I am disappointed in the findings of my fellow W&M Alumni, but I guess I can't fault him for protecting himself and his family from accidents without clear intent with this finding. Ummm... yes I can.

His position in the Clinton admin will come with a hefty raise and a VP gig at Monsanto when he cashes out.

[ASUG8]

Bottom line: Hillary skates, conks look as inept as ever, blow gift-wrapped Presidency.

How do the republicans look inept with regard to this? They've been blowing the whistle for years on the server issue while somehow the independent FBI has allowed Hillary to trickle heavily edited and parsed emails in for review on her own schedule. She lied about classified and top secret content, she was called on it by Republicans, and the FBI followed suit but said it would have resulted in charges to anyone else except her. Bill just happens to run into the AG at an airport the week before the FBI pronouncement and he absolutely has to deboard his plane and get on hers to discuss golf and grandchildren
Continuing to chase down charges in Benghazi when it was clear that no one was going to do anything about it was the only boonedoggle I'm aware of recently.

The problem is that despite repeatedly being disingenuous the only thing the left hears is "no charges" despite her inarguable lack of honesty.

[GannonFan]

Indeed, not a Democrat or Republican thing, just a wealthy thing. If you're wealthy, there are different rules. We all know this.

Guess being a 4 star general (Petreas) doesn't make you wealthy enough..

Petreaus was a great general, but that's an entirely different world from being in the elite in terms of political power and wealth which is where the Clinton's reside. The same rules just simply don't apply and this shouldn't really be shocking to anyone. The elite are above the law, because of wealth and because of the influence their wealth or proximity to power can wield. Comey was right, no reasonable prosecutor would ever pursue these charges - whichever prosecutor would do so would be labeled as such a pariah and be pilloried by her supporters that it would be career suicide. Again, the law does not apply to the elite.

[Skjellyfetti]

Indeed, not a Democrat or Republican thing, just a wealthy thing. If you're wealthy, there are different rules. We all know this.

Guess being a 4 star general (Petreas) doesn't make you wealthy enough..

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/da ... .html?_r=0

[andy7171]

What exactly does "Gross Negligence" mean?

[houndawg]

Bottom line: Hillary skates, conks look as inept as ever, blow gift-wrapped Presidency.

How do the republicans look inept with regard to this? They've been blowing the whistle for years on the server issue while somehow the independent FBI has allowed Hillary to trickle heavily edited and parsed emails in for review on her own schedule. She lied about classified and top secret content, she was called on it by Republicans, and the FBI followed suit but said it would have resulted in charges to anyone else except her. Bill just happens to run into the AG at an airport the week before the FBI pronouncement and he absolutely has to deboard his plane and get on hers to discuss golf and grandchildren
Continuing to chase down charges in Benghazi when it was clear that no one was going to do anything about it was the only boonedoggle I'm aware of recently.

The problem is that despite repeatedly being disingenuous the only thing the left hears is "no charges" despite her inarguable lack of honesty.

Because Comey is a Republican and he rolled over to keep his job and have that VP gig at Monsanto waiting when he leaves.

Spending $7,000,000 investigating Benghazi and coming back with nothing.

They can't catch her even when there is smoke everywhere for 20 years. They're too slow and they're too dumb.

[houndawg]

Guess being a 4 star general (Petreas) doesn't make you wealthy enough..

Petreaus was a great general, but that's an entirely different world from being in the elite in terms of political power and wealth which is where the Clinton's reside. The same rules just simply don't apply and this shouldn't really be shocking to anyone. The elite are above the law, because of wealth and because of the influence their wealth or proximity to power can wield. Comey was right, no reasonable prosecutor would ever pursue these charges - whichever prosecutor would do so would be labeled as such a pariah and be pilloried by her supporters that it would be career suicide. Again, the law does not apply to the elite.

Discussing State secrets with the biographer he was banging. Yeah, great General officer.

[kalm]

The reality is, the average voter is not nearly as informed on this story or politics in general as the average cs.com poli-board user. They are fairly apolitical and the two party system predetermines their feelings on most issues including this one. They have a peripheral understanding at best of Hillary's email scandal so it's a complicated and technical accusation, proven to be another failed witch hunt if you're a Dem and the slippery Clinton's getting away with it again if you're a Republican.

As mentioned by many and in Skelly's Intercept piece, the take away is affirmation of entrenched wealth and power and the two-tiered justice system.

[Skjellyfetti]

Interesting that the interview with Hilldog and the FBI happens on Saturday of a holiday weekend and on Tuesday morning they announce no charges. Seems a little expeditious doesn't it?

Also interesting that Obama started campaigning for her the same day her investigation ended. Could be coincidental... but........

[OL FU]

I realize this won't happen but I thought the most interesting thing about the FBI directors comments was that typically this type of behavior would require some sanctions or penalties by the state department (ie, withdrawal of security clearance).

So theoretically does that mean we could have the first president of the United States that can't see classified documents

[Ibanez]

Not that it will happen, but some independent prosecutor could still bring indict her. (or whatever the term is)


And if Trump is elected, i'm sure that'll happen in the first 100 days.

[ASUG8]

How do the republicans look inept with regard to this? They've been blowing the whistle for years on the server issue while somehow the independent FBI has allowed Hillary to trickle heavily edited and parsed emails in for review on her own schedule. She lied about classified and top secret content, she was called on it by Republicans, and the FBI followed suit but said it would have resulted in charges to anyone else except her. Bill just happens to run into the AG at an airport the week before the FBI pronouncement and he absolutely has to deboard his plane and get on hers to discuss golf and grandchildren
Continuing to chase down charges in Benghazi when it was clear that no one was going to do anything about it was the only boonedoggle I'm aware of recently.

The problem is that despite repeatedly being disingenuous the only thing the left hears is "no charges" despite her inarguable lack of honesty.

Because Comey is a Republican and he rolled over to keep his job and have that VP gig at Monsanto waiting when he leaves.

Spending $7,000,000 investigating Benghazi and coming back with nothing.

They can't catch her even when there is smoke everywhere for 20 years. They're too slow and they're too dumb.

I acknowledged the misdirection on Benghazi which has exactly zero to do with her handling of e-mail. I'm also assuming Comey didn't lose his job in 2008 because this administration viewed him as able to set aside his political leanings to pursue the law. Turns out that likely wasn't the case now as we've found there are laws for low level operatives and laws for those flying at a different altitude.

[CID1990]

But according to dumbass houndie, hilldog was too smart to get caught.

Bottom line: Hillary skates, conks look as inept as ever, blow gift-wrapped Presidency.

No less an authority on the bureaucratic mind than our very own CID the Sensible Moderate has said on the record that Comey, a Republican, is a straight-shooter who doesn't play politics and will let the chips fall where they may. He probably has a good idea about what the straight-shooting non-politician's ( ) next job will be in the Clinton administration.

Nice call bro, right up there with Z's expertise on suitability of VP candidates.

Nobody is fooled by your passive aggressive splooge stained umpteen posts ab Hillary, spoogedawg.

We all know you can't directly defend her, but that's no reason to deflect from the fact that youre elated that your choice for president will not be indicted.

BTW I stand by my assessment of Comey.

[ASUG8]

Interesting that the interview with Hilldog and the FBI happens on Saturday of a holiday weekend and on Tuesday morning they announce no charges. Seems a little expeditious doesn't it?

Also interesting that Obama started campaigning for her the same day her investigation ended. Could be coincidental... but........

I'm proud of you in this thread, Skelly.

[Ivytalk]

Also interesting that Obama started campaigning for her the same day her investigation ended. Could be coincidental... but........

I'm proud of you in this thread, Skelly.

Not sure that's justified. I haven't seen analjelly disavow Hildabeast for Jill Stein yet.

[GannonFan]

Petreaus was a great general, but that's an entirely different world from being in the elite in terms of political power and wealth which is where the Clinton's reside. The same rules just simply don't apply and this shouldn't really be shocking to anyone. The elite are above the law, because of wealth and because of the influence their wealth or proximity to power can wield. Comey was right, no reasonable prosecutor would ever pursue these charges - whichever prosecutor would do so would be labeled as such a pariah and be pilloried by her supporters that it would be career suicide. Again, the law does not apply to the elite.

Discussing State secrets with the biographer he was banging. Yeah, great General officer.

Why does one have anything to do with the other? What he did while he was running the armed forces was exemplary. What he did afterwards, while writing his memoirs, was deplorable and criminal. I don't see how what he did while writing his memoirs changes what happened in the past.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm proud of you in this thread, Skelly.

Not sure that's justified. I haven't seen analjelly disavow Hildabeast for Jill Stein yet.

I've said on hear many times that there is 0% chance I'm voting for Hillary. I don't think you'll ever see me defending her. I first starting posting on AGS political forum... not to argue with Conks... but, to argue with Travis against Hillary in the Democratic primary.

My anti-Hillary posting history is longer than anti-Republican.



Having said that. I don't know who I'm voting for. Right now probably Gary Johnson. I agree with him on a lot and my disagreements are fairly minor (or things he wouldn't be able to implement). I think he's competent and would do a good job.

I agree with Jill Stein on a lot. But, she's completely fucking loony and clueless on a lot of things. Not much chance I will vote for her.