To Indict or not to Indict...

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

The good news: Contrary to what some may think about this morning's news about Hillary, I believe it completely plays into Trump's narrative that the system is rigged and we need a cleansing ASAP. If I'mTrump, I'm taking it to the streets: "Crooked Hillary is an indelible part of a system that is rigged -- rigged against you the American people. What would have happened if you, average Joe American citizen, had you committed those same National Security violations?"

I don't disagree. I think FBI Director Comey went out of his way to obliterate the many false narratives HRC & her cronies have floated in their attempts to wave away the private e-mail server story.

I just don't think it bodes well for the rule of law. Again that probably plays into Trump's hands if he can skillfully exploit the "law is for little people" angle to this story.

 

[purkey]

I think, if there is one, the key word is "intended" here. It's a joke but if intentions kept people out jail no one would be there. We are a corrupt country no doubt about it. It's a joke. I think even if Trump can get any mileage out of this it will be limited. He has yet to impress me going against this despicable human being.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I think, if there is one, the key word is "intended" here. It's a joke but if intentions kept people out jail no one would be there. We are a corrupt country no doubt about it. It's a joke. I think even if Trump can get any mileage out of this it will be limited. He has yet to impress me going against this despicable human being.

18 USC 793 (aka the Espionage Act), sub-section (f):

(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.


Things that come about via gross negligence are not intentional. The act (see above) was specifically worded to include instances of gross negligence because the law intends for there to be a greater care and duty to protect such information. Lack of intent is not supposed to be an excuse.

 

[MegaPoke]

18 USC 793 (aka the Espionage Act), sub-section (f):

(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.


Things that come about via gross negligence are not intentional. The act (see above) was specifically worded to include instances of gross negligence because the law intends for there to be a greater care and duty to protect such information. Lack of intent is not supposed to be an excuse.

Transparency is actuslly exactly what we are getting. Transparent corruption that everyone can see but nobody can stop.

 

[MegaPoke]

Coincidence that Bill met with LL last week. Coincidence Obsma already had a Hillary campaign appearance planned for today. He doesn't even bother to try to make it look like it was even in doubt.

We are being played and they aren't even trying to sell it.

 

[purkey]

Coincidence that Bill met with LL last week. Coincidence Obsma already had a Hillary campaign appearance planned for today. He doesn't even bother to try to make it look like it was even in doubt.

We are being played and they aren't even trying to sell it.

that's exactly as it is. They know what's going to happen because they've been plottin' and planning for months if not years. We are a bunch of stooges.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

 

[MegaPoke]

View embedded media

More I think about this the more I think Comey has been told there would be no indictment but wanted to make a clear statement about the obvious negligence and lies. It seems very purposeful that he laid out all these details in direct contradiction to Hillary's claims in a public statement.

 

[davidallen]

Comey: gross negligence in handling sensitive/classified material meets the definition for violation of federal law and the standard for a felony or misdemeanor indictment.

“No reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case over Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information as secretary of state, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said.

Seems to me he didn't find "gross negligence", perhaps “extremely careless” isn't the same. Truly who is surprised by this?

 

[MegaPoke]

“No reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case over Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information as secretary of state, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said.

Seems to me he didn't find "gross negligence", perhaps “extremely careless” isn't the same. Truly who is surprised by this?

Surprised? Nobody. Also not surprised that you are spinning it. Isn't a crook ever just a crook even if they have the preferred letter next to their name?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Comey is trying to make sure he is viewed as credible but it is obvious he was strong armed and hog tied. His only option was this or be napping with Vince foster. The Clintons will never pay for their sins.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

“No reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case over Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information as secretary of state, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said.

Seems to me he didn't find "gross negligence", perhaps “extremely careless” isn't the same. Truly who is surprised by this?

I'm not surprised. And I admit he was in a very difficult position (the Clinton's have a habit of placing other people in such positions).

I believe he purposely used "extremely careless" as a euphemism for gross negligence so that the public could see what he (and the FBI) really thinks about Hillary and her actions. There is no meaningful distinction as defined by a reasonable observer.

 

[MegaPoke]

I'm not surprised. And I admit he was in a very difficult position (the Clinton's have a habit of placing other people in such positions).

I believe he purposely used "extremely careless" as a euphemism for gross negligence so that the public could see what he (and the FBI) really thinks about Hillary and her actions. There is no meaningful distinction as defined by a reasonable observer.

Agree 1000%. And fortunately, not all dems puking up excuses for the dried up old bitch. This may bite her in her ample ass yet.

http://www.allenbwest.com/michellej...r-fbi-announcement-hillary-gets-terrible-news

 

[davidallen]

Surprised? Nobody. Also not surprised that you are spinning it. Isn't a crook ever just a crook even if they have the preferred letter next to their name?

Spin? Reality... HRC is not my choice for POTUS - the incompetent right has seen to it that I don't have a choice this election cycle save a symbolic vote for Johnson. Well done all.

 

[blbronco]

Spin? Reality... HRC is not my choice for POTUS - the incompetent right has seen to it that I don't have a choice this election cycle save a symbolic vote for Johnson. Well done all.

A vote for Johnson is not at all symbolic. Gets a third national party and can hopefully make the R and D parties somewhat honest.

On to the e-mail scandal. This played out exactly how most people thought it would. Those soundbites will be used over and over by Trump (maybe the GOP in general?). The republicans will wear more egg on their faces than hillary. The clintons are a slimy group, and crap always slides right off. If the GOP yried too hard on too many fronts.

 

[Medic007]

the incompetent right has seen to it that I don't have a choice this election cycle

So the right pre-annointed Hillary and ensured she always had a comfortable lead via superdelegates and helped her secure the nomination? I know blaming the right is always quite fashionable in the left circles, but come on man, Democrat voters are responsible for Hillary being your choice.

 

[JimmyBob]

A vote for Johnson is not at all symbolic. Gets a third national party and can hopefully make the R and D parties somewhat honest.

On to the e-mail scandal. This played out exactly how most people thought it would. Those soundbites will be used over and over by Trump (maybe the GOP in general?). The republicans will wear more egg on their faces than hillary. The clintons are a slimy group, and crap always slides right off. If the GOP yried too hard on too many fronts.

Voting for Johnson won't change jack shit. Yes, I "get it" from a feel good perspective, but nothing will change.

Trump will find a way to f*ck up any benefit from Comey's charade today; he's too arrogant ala Barry not to take every bait - oh look a squirrel - dangled. The media will finish the destruction. My right tit, surgically removed in '07 is more electable than this dipwad.

 

[windriverrange]

Ironic she explained all her lies on a mic labeled UN....one habitual lying POS at a meeting of incompetent lying anti american shit hooks.

 

[davidallen]

So the right pre-annointed Hillary and ensured she always had a comfortable lead via superdelegates and helped her secure the nomination? I know blaming the right is always quite fashionable in the left circles, but come on man, Democrat voters are responsible for Hillary being your choice.

No the right gave us the only plausible alternative which is not...

 

[Medic007]

No the right gave us the only plausible alternative which is not...

It's the responsibility of the Democratic Party to put out a decent electable without grimacing candidate. It isn't the right's responsibility. The Republicans are supposed to as well, and they tried hard, but it backfired on them as the majority of folks on the right are sick of the uniparty status quo state of the party. That brought us Trump who the party blue hairs still can't figure out.

Democrats supported Hillary both at the party level and at the voter level. Surveys made it clear the majority of Democrat voters couldn't care less if Hillary has no integrity. So blaming the right for your dilemma is just a refusal to acknowledge the failure of the Democratic Party for presenting Hillary as your available choice if you choose to vote Democrat. Bernie was CLOSE but couldn't overcome the early entry and party support of Hillary.

Which Republican candidate would you have ACTUALLY supported? I don't recall you showing enthusiasm about any of them in previous discussions (doesn't mean I'm right, so serious question).

 

[MegaPoke]

So the right pre-annointed Hillary and ensured she always had a comfortable lead via superdelegates and helped her secure the nomination? I know blaming the right is always quite fashionable in the left circles, but come on man, Democrat voters are responsible for Hillary being your choice.

The nebulous "right" may not have, but the establishment republicans clearly already have a deal in place with her. Paul Ryan is the face of them.

 

[davidallen]

It's the responsibility of the Democratic Party to put out a decent electable without grimacing candidate. It isn't the right's responsibility. The Republicans are supposed to as well, and they tried hard, but it backfired on them as the majority of folks on the right are sick of the uniparty status quo state of the party. That brought us Trump who the party blue hairs still can't figure out.

Democrats supported Hillary both at the party level and at the voter level. Surveys made it clear the majority of Democrat voters couldn't care less if Hillary has no integrity. So blaming the right for your dilemma is just a refusal to acknowledge the failure of the Democratic Party for presenting Hillary as your available choice if you choose to vote Democrat. Bernie was CLOSE but couldn't overcome the early entry and party support of Hillary.

Which Republican candidate would you have ACTUALLY supported? I don't recall you showing enthusiasm about any of them in previous discussions (doesn't mean I'm right, so serious question).

On the right Carly before she went off on her abortion bender, flirted with Rand Paul before he started his courting of the religious right, Kasich to the end though he was pretty goofy... In the end, Kasich would get my support over HRC.

My point is this is a failure of BOTH parties... and the right has been doing this wrong for more than a decade now.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Not sure the majority of "the right" ever supported Trump. He's just the last guy standing, isn't he?

 

[davidallen]

Not sure the majority of "the right" ever supported Trump. He's just the last guy standing, isn't he?

A plurality is enough... just under a majority - something like 13 mln votes cast for Tramp vs. 14 mln for all others in the primaries.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Thoughts form a previous U.S. AG: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-makes-the-fbis-least-wanted-list-1467760857