Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Comey’s Hillary decision requires “the willing suspension of disbelief”

Comey’s Hillary decision requires “the willing suspension of disbelief”

Either Comey is the dumbest person on earth, or he thinks we are.

Suspension of disbelief is the term that came to mind when I watched FBI Director James Comey’s decision to recommend no charges against Hillary.

As Comey went through the litany of Hillary’s misdeeds, lies, defalcations of duty, extreme carelessness, cunning and risks to national security, Comey made the case for any of a series of charges against Hillary. Then, with the reputation of the FBI about to be vindicated, Comey dropped the dreaded “however.”

In House testimony, Comey again confirmed every factual point demanding prosecution, yet defended his decision not to recommend charges because he was treating Hillary just like he would any other citizen.

Can anyone seriously claim, as Comey has, that Hillary was treated as any other citizen would? It’s laughable and requires the suspension of disbelief. Either Comey is the dumbest person on earth, or he thinks we are.

Judicial Watch has dug and dug and driven much of the investigation into Hillary’s misdeeds through its FOIA litigation. Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations, Chris Farrel, had an op-ed in The Hill calling out Comey for his complicity in this scandal, FBI’s Comey is complicit in Clinton email scandal:

Comey provided the following detailed examples of how Mrs. Clinton violated the law: “110 e-mails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information.”

Comey charged that former Secretary of State Clinton (and her colleagues), “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” And he confirmed that, “any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

With respect to Mrs. Clinton’s culpability in the compromise of national defense information to hostile actors, Mr. Comey stated: “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.

She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Unbelievably, having defined the elements of a national security crime and given specific examples of Mrs. Clinton’s reckless, dangerous conduct in each case, Mr. Comey concluded that “no charges are appropriate in this case” and that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Mr. Comey did not tell the truth. Many people, in and out of government, know Mr. Comey’s blatant falsehood.

In conclusion, Farrell writes:

Should Mr. Comey continue as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? No.

It’s hard to argue with that.

What would Hillary say if she were on the other side of this? I think we know. She would insist that Comey’s decision and rationale requires the willing suspension of disbelief, a term she used with regard to the far more legitimate report of General David Petraeus regarding the Iraq war and proposed surge, as William Safire wrote in a column at the NY Times:

After years of blinking at news of the celebrated glitterati and suffering the certitude of the illuminati, finally the old-fashioned literati had their moment in the political sun.

It came in a Senate hearing room on Sept. 11, when Gen. David Petraeus, commander of United States forces in Iraq, gave his promised report on progress in the war. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton reached back 190 years in literary history for the exact phrase and told him, “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

“The phrase ‘suspension of disbelief,’ ” noted the columnist Alan Nathan in The Washington Times, “is a literary term of art referring to one of Aristotle’s principles of theater in which the audience accepts fiction as reality so as to experience a catharsis, or a releasing of tensions to purify the soul.” He went on to characterize the general’s testimony as “more in keeping with Bertolt Brecht’s philosophy of Verfremdungseffekt, or distancing from that suspended belief, in order to maintain a clearheaded appreciation of the drama in focus.”

Hillary smeared Petraeus, as history showed. The only “willing suspension of disbelief” was by Hillary.

Here, the FBI has had its reputation smeared not by critics of Comey, but by Comey.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

He had visions of Vince Foster on his mind!

    oldav8r in reply to JoAnne. | July 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I’d be willing to bet that, during her “interview,” Hillary simply laid photos on the table of Comey’s wife and kids going about their daily routine. He got the message.

Sandy Berger got off for his deeds too. Comey had a hand in that when he was deputy AG for justice dept.

    Estragon in reply to showtime8. | July 10, 2016 at 1:34 am

    Berger paid a $50,000 fine, lost his clearance & I believe surrendered his law license in a plea deal. He got off lightly, but he didn’t get “off.”

      maxmillion in reply to Estragon. | July 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

      Don’t be a tool. The Clintons paid the $50 thou out of the petty cash drawer at their foundation, and he doesn’t practice law any more anyway, if he ever did. Anything that didn’t include at least 5 years in federal lockup amounted to “off.”

      Milhouse in reply to Estragon. | July 10, 2016 at 2:05 pm

      He only lost his clearance temporarily; the suspension was conveniently timed to expire just before the H Clinton administration was to take office in 2009. And as maxmillion pointed out, the fine was probably paid by the same people who paid him to steal the documents in the first place.

Anyone else who did the exact same thing, not named Hillary Clinton, would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Comey knows it, Lynch knows it, Hillary knows it and we know it.

This IS how a Banana Republic operates.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Sanddog. | July 10, 2016 at 1:33 am

    We not only know that, but Comey told us himself:

    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.

    Translated:
    Anybody else, having done what was done by Secretary Clinton, would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Don’t mistake her getting a pass as immunity from prosecution for less privileged, ordinary Americans.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 10, 2016 at 2:10 pm

      Um, no. Your “translation” is the exact opposite of what Comey said. Comey could not have been clearer, both in his original speech and in his testimony to Congress, that nobody has ever been charged under the statute for mere gross negligence, no reasonable prosecutor would ever charge anyone else with it, and the statute allowing such a charge was of suspect validity. He may be wrong, and several experts have said he is wrong, but that is what he said, and when you misrepresent it like this you are outright lying. That is never acceptable.

rabid wombat | July 9, 2016 at 8:14 pm

“Suspension of disbelief” is the reason why fiction is so enjoyable. Less so in legal proceedings.

Andy McCarthy has been doing the yeoman work of picking this episode apart.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437643/fbi-director-james-comey-testimony-clinton-defense-crumbles-under-scrutiny

It is outside the realm of credibility that Hellary should walk away from her crimes, and pretty much everyone knows this, including even most liberals.

I don’t think Comey thinks we are that stupid, but he is gambling that Democrat voters are.

Why wasn’t the testimony of the others that were questioned given more thought? Huma said that Hillary used the server to keep others from using the FOA act to access her emails. That ofc was to hide all those emails about the hugh money donations her foundation was taking in from many countries not friendly with the US. Then what about the Tech guy who was given immunity and still took the 5th hundreds of times? Why isn’t he still being investigated if he had so much to hide? The fact that he took the 5th tells me he already knew Hillary was going to be let off the hook so why bother answering any questions. We saw what happened with Lois lerner when she took the 5th. Seems nobody ever pays when they lie to Congress or the FBI. Well that is nobody that works for the Obama regime. In watching Comeys questioning, he did say his love is only for his family. Makes me wonder if thats why he gave the no charges ending. Could it be he knows whats happened to many of the people that were connected to the Clintons and ended up dead.

Finally I had to laugh when Comey was asked if Hillary had lied to congress and why wasn’t she charged with perjury? Comey said because congress never asked him about it. Doesn’t that say all we need to know? If they were really looking for the facts and truth, you would certainly think that at least one or two of the dozens of FBI agents that were said to be on the case had to be given the assignment to listen in on Hillary testimony. The fix was in a long time ago when Obama appointed Loretta Lynch and those idiots in congress approved of her nomination. They had to know she was just another Eric Holder in a dress.

    randian in reply to foxmuldar. | July 10, 2016 at 1:25 am

    I wasn’t aware you could take the 5th if you had immunity.

      Milhouse in reply to randian. | July 10, 2016 at 2:17 pm

      You can’t, if the answer required is within the scope of your immunity. But if you’re asked something and an honest answer would incriminate you beyond the scope of your immunity then of course you still have the right not to give that answer.

It is an amazing display of cognitive dissonance.

It’s not like she had no duty based on her special position to not do exactly what she intended to do and then did.

Hillary activists have lost moral legitimacy to lecture others or be believed. What lengths are they not willing to go?

Comfey is destined to end up a Trivial Pursuit question twenty teens edition.

“This FBI director did not have the balls to indict Hillary Clinton.”

“…the FBI has had its reputation smeared…”

I think it far worse than that. An FBI investigation is a joke if your frame of reference is logic and the rule of law.

Comey was appointed Director of the FBI in 2013. Considering the criteria Obama uses for his appointments, why would I expect a Hillary investigation to reach a conclusion based on the rule of law?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to TX-rifraph. | July 10, 2016 at 2:05 am

    Agreed. Right now ANY investigation by ANY Federal agency has to be assumed to be primarily political or pecuniary in nature. The law has nothing to do with it.

inspectorudy | July 10, 2016 at 12:45 am

If you have ever seen the commercial where there is a bank robbery and there is a guard standing there while all of the customers are on the floor looking at the guard and he says “I’m a robbery monitor and this is a robbery”. This is almost as bad as what Comey did. He listed all of the crimes she committed and then said, “I’m just a monitor, she committed many crimes”. All the idiot had to do was stop at the point where he said “However”. At that point he could have turned it over to lyin lyinch and then the decision would have been hers and obama’s. I don’t get it unless he figures she is going to win and that he will be in high cotton.

It’s so indefensible as to lead to speculation. One possible reason for doing this that doesn’t damn Comey is that he knew Lynch would never file serious charges, but that Hillary might be able to plea to some small offense with no real penalty, ending it forever. This way no jeopardy attaches, it can be revisited (if she isn’t elected, that is).

All the more reason for the GOP to nominate someone who has a chance to win instead of a carnival sideshow.

Subotai Bahadur | July 10, 2016 at 2:00 am

It is not a demand for the suspension of disbelief. It is a demand for submission. Silence and failure to act by the Republican party and the American people is that submission. Speaking frankly, the FBI is, and always has been the secret police that every country needs to protect itself from foreign enemies. But it was done with the understanding that it was the nation’s secret police, and not the property of any one political movement or politician. They may not have been perfectly ethical, but they got a pass because it was believed that even at their worst, their loyalty was to country and Constitution.

That understanding is null and void now. And it cannot be re-instated again with the current department and staff. There is no reason to trust them again to obey the law, or the Constitution, or their oaths to either one. Integrity, like virginity, can only be lost once and not regained.

    Ragspierre in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | July 10, 2016 at 8:56 am

    I disagree to this extent; integrity is like virtue, not virginity. You elect to live by integrity or not every day. All you have to do to have integrity is decide to have it and live accordingly.

Comey had the power, Lady Justice has none.

As I look at Comey’s face, I’m reminded of Antony Weiner’s expression when he got busted for his scandal. Coincidence? I think not.

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/07/7-anthony-weiner.w529.h529.jpg

The most intriguing and interesting question at the hearing was the one that FBI Dir. Comey refused to answer:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, asked: “Did you look at the Clinton Foundation?”

Common Sense | July 10, 2016 at 9:49 am

The Supreme Court failed us with Obamacare and now the FBI fails us with E-mail gate.
Hillary walked free and Justice as we know it died!

You are watching our nation being destroyed piece by piece!

    Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 10:30 am

    …and your point is what, exactly?

    And I DO mean “EXACTLY”.

      Because, as Comey pointed out, no one is ever charged criminally unless there is some demonstration of intent. To do so now would be unequal treatment.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 2:48 pm

        And as many others, including respected former prosecutors Judge Michael Mukasey and Andrew McCarthy have pointed out, this simply isn’t true.

    ConradCA in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 11:31 am

    That’s irrelevant. If they committed crimes then charge them. It doesn’t give Hillary and BJ an excuse to betray our country and violate our laws.

      Because, as Comey pointed out, no one is ever charged criminally unless there is some demonstration of intent. To do so now would be unequal treatment.

        Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 1:02 pm

        Annnnnnd….

        that’s not true.

        But as I pointed out you’re entirely ignorant of how the classified world works. So you’ll be a sucker for anything.

        I bet you also fell for the lie that only one person has been prosecuted under this statute in the last 100 years.

        “The director maintains, however, that using the statute to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would be inappropriate even if the statute is valid. This, he reasons, is because the statute has only been used once since its enactment in 1917. The idea is that using it against her would amount to unlawful selective prosecution. I am puzzled by this argument for several reasons, but I will limit this post to just one of them: The fact that the statute has been used repeatedly in military prosecutions – and that at least one military court decision undermines arguments Director Comey has made about the state-of-mind proof required…

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437595/military-prosecutions-show-gross-negligence-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out

        People did get prosecuted convicted during my 20 years in. And some of them appealed all the way up to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed forces. For instance:

        “The defendant in McGuinness claimed that he merely intended to keep the classified items as personal reference materials, not to improperly disseminate them. Thus, he contended that willfulness, the mens rea (state of mind) proof requirement in Section 793(e), was legally insufficient. It was not enough, he insisted, for the prosecution to prove he had knowingly violated a legal duty regarding the safekeeping of classified information; the government needed in addition to prove bad faith – meaning: that he intended to do harm. Obviously, this is very similar to Director Comey’s theory that, in a Section 793(f) case, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove mere “gross negligence,” even though that’s what subsection (f) says. The director claims the statute should be read to require additional proof of an intent to cause harm. In McGuinness, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals rejected the defendant’s claim, and it did so in a way that is instructive for our purposes. The judges explained that in Section 793 (part of the codification of the Espionage Act of 1917), Congress sought to establish a sliding scale of violations involving the mishandling of classified information. The first subsection – Sec. 793(a) – requires proof of “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Subsequent subsections – Sec. 793(d) and (e) – “require only that the accused act ‘willfully’” (i.e., in violation of a known legal duty, but not necessarily with intent to harm the U.S.). Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.)”

        But you know what never happened after that? The final court of appeal never accept the the appeal. And the final court of appeal for servicemembers is the U.S. Supreme Court. Because they never questioned the validity of the of the entire statute, include the the gross negligence standard.

        We’re talking federal courts interpreting a federal statute that applies to everyone handling classified information, whether military or civilian.

        I hate to break it to you, but Comey lied to you. Because, again, you are ignorant of how things work in the classified world.

        Here’s another thing he lied to you about; gross negligence is a form of criminal intent. So is acting willfully without intent to cause harm to the United States. And acting willfully with intent to cause harm to the United States. All are mental states (mens rea) that make you legally and morally culpable for your crimes. But there are different levels of culpability depending on your mental state. Gross negligence is a perfectly acceptable legal term, that’s why just about every state has laws against harming a child do to negligence or negligent homicide. But the punishment is less severe than if you intentionally injure a child or murder someone with malice aforethought.

          Arminius: The director maintains, however, that using the statute to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would be inappropriate even if the statute is valid.“The director maintains, however, that using the statute to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would be inappropriate even if the statute is valid.

          The example doesn’t even concern the same section of the law.

          forksdad in reply to Arminius. | July 11, 2016 at 12:38 pm

          Zachriel, shut up. You either don’t know what you are talking about or are deliberately squirting squid ink. Intent has nothing absolutely nothing to do with securing classified materials. Except for the capital penalties for treason. Nothing. End of Story. I was responsible for marking, shipping, packaging, securing, holding, storage, and checking classified information for years I KNOW the relevant statutes she broke.

          Even Comey admitted that anyone else would have been prosecuted. I know people prosecuted for less. I know of people who are in jail for doing way less.

          She broke the laws in ways that require big jail time for regular people. Twenty years for each and every violation re TS and SAR. There are other laws that I am not sure of the terms being declassified but trust me they are more severe and have less leeway and she broke those. No one is questioning that.

          Comey doesn’t want to have his throat crushed while lifting weights or is compromised in other ways.

          Either you don’t understand the issue or you are a liar. I don’t care which but you need to shut up while adults are talking.

          forksdad: Even Comey admitted that anyone else would have been prosecuted.

          He said exactly the opposite.

          Comey: That would be treating somebody differently because of their celebrity status or because of some other factor that doesn’t matter. We have to treat people, the bedrock of our system of justice, we have to treat people fairly. We treat them the same based on their conduct.”

          What he did say is that it could be “subject to security or administrative sanctions”.

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 11, 2016 at 11:59 pm

          Zachriel is correct that Comey said nobody else would be prosecuted for mere “gross negligence”, despite the statute saying they can be. He’s wrong, but that is what he said, and forksdad misrepresented his words.

    Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    It’s amusing that you seem to buy Hillary’s entirely BS “everybody does it” argument. Anybody who does only does so because they are clueless about how things work in the classified world.

    The Secretary of State is designated by Executive Order as an original classification authority (OCA).

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority

    “Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority

    Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled “Classified National Security Information” (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as “Top Secret” or “Secret”:

    TOP SECRET

    …Departments and Agencies:

    The Secretary of State…”

    What that means is if the DoS originates information the Secretary is the final authority on if that information is classified, and if so at what level.

    So what’s going on is that Hillary’s evil minions are overclassifying her predecessors’ emails to help her cover her fat ass. So she can say, “See, everybody did it.” And idiots will buy it. I don’t know if it’s illegal for them to do that, but it may be.

    But with Powell, at least, it’s complete BS.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

    ” In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State’s archives contained national security information now classified “Secret” or “Confidential.” The letter was obtained by NBC News.

    Two of the messages were sent to Powell’s personal account, and 10 were sent to personal accounts of Rice’s senior aides, the letter said.

    None of the messages were marked classified when originally sent, and none were determined to include information from the intelligence community, Linick said in the document.

    Powell told NBC News he strongly disputed that the information in the messages sent to him was classified, and characterized the contents as “fairly minor.”

    “I wish they would release them,” Powell said, “so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, ‘What’s the issue?'”

    Powell said he has read the two messages in question, having been made aware of the letter. The messages originated with ambassadors — one in the Philippines, the other in Europe. He said they were first circulated on unclassified State Department systems, and sent to his personal account by his assistant.

    “They were unclassified at the time, and they are, in my judgment, still unclassified,” he said… ”

    These emails originated with his ambassadors. In other words, with the DoS. As the OCA for the DoS it was entirely his call to say they whether or not they were classified. And guess what? Hillary Clinton had the same authority inside the State Dept. and only inside the State Dept. He determined the emails from his ambassadors were not classified. And he’s the ultimate authority on information originating with the DoS, and DoS information on his watch.

    By the way, if you read the article, he had a classified computer on his desk. For handling classified information. Something Clinton never had. just in case you weren’t able to put that together.

    And it appears it’s the same for Condoleeza Rice.

    ” Rice, now a professor at Stanford University, was unavailable for comment, said her chief of staff, Georgia Godfrey.

    “She did not use email as secretary nor use a personal email account,” Godfey said via email. “My understanding is that the report is in reference to emails sent to her assistant reporting diplomatic conversations and they contained no intelligence information.”

    And guess what? That would be her call to make since the information originated within the DoS.

    Fitting for Hillary Clinton, she is now having her old partners in crime go back and in fine Bolshevik style rewrite history.

    Here’s where Hillary Clinton screwed up. I’ll repeat it; it’s in the article above but you may have missed it.

    “…none were determined to include information from the intelligence community, Linick said in the document.”

    You see, an OCA uses a six step process. Step one: did it originate with another agency or department and has the appropriate OCA already determined it’s classified? If so, stop, you’re done. An OCA can only determine if information is classified if their own department or agency originates it, and then only if it’s within their specialty. So if an army attache somehow acquires information on an undersea warfare system, the Department of the Army can’t determine if it’s classified. They have to hand it off to the Department of the Navy.

    At least 300 people exchanged emails with her on her home brew server. Illegally. I guess some of them are her friends. Some of them just don’t want to take the fall for her. So they’re trying to help her with her cover story that her practices were in line with her predecessors. They were not. What the ignorant don’t realize is that these stories actually confirm that no one did anything like what she did.

    Unlike her predecessors, she had information from other agencies and departments. Highly classified information from the intel community; at least CIA, NSA, and NGIA on her unclassified, unauthorized (read illegal), and unsecure private homebrew server. Hillary Clinton could have done what her predecessors did, and it sounds like she did. But instead of stopping there she went far beyond any authority she had when she f*cked with the intel community and stripped classification markings of of their intel and compromised it.

    One more thing; nobody with a TS/SCI clearance has the excuse of saying they don’t know unmarked classified information when they see it. But for an OCA that’s doubly true, because it’s their job to know if unmarked information should be classified, if so at what level, and what if any caveats need to be on it.

    This is why she needs to hang.

    Common Sense in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    Another mindless progressive drone!

    Barry in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Comey ignored emails classified after the fact, as these emails sent to powell and rice were.

    Neither Powell or Rice sent classified information, they only received emails that were later classified.

    Sorry, try again to justify the witches willful breaking of the law.

As the Professor says, Comey’s testimony demonstrated they had enough evidence to make an ironclad case not only on the mishandling of classified. The DoJ had enough to charge her with multiple felonies.

Such as:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

“18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

I don’t know which section best applies to Hillary but by using a private server located on her own property outslide the State Dept. she definitely removed records, concealed them, and ultimately destroyed many of them.

Her actions were certainly willful; she had someone build and install a server in a house and paid people to manage and maintain it. And now we know, if we didn’t know before, it was definitely unlawful.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-broke-email-rules-state-department-report-article-1.2649383

“‘Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,’ the report says. ‘At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.'”

The J-school grads who wrote this can’t read and understand English. They actually say this:

“While the report indicates Clinton violated the State Department’s own policies she didn’t violate the Federal Records Act, which would have been a more serious transgression.”

The above paragraph says exactly that; she violated the FRA. Because the regulations are how the State Dept. implements the law. Those regulations tell the employees how to comply with the law. Violate the rules and you are violating the law.

    Arminius (quoting): Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary

    Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

      Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 1:13 pm

      You are one confused dude. It would have been a violation of the Hatch Act if they didn’t use RNC computers, RNC servers, and RNC email. Because the Hatch Act makes it illegal to conduct political business using government resources.

      And it’s legal for a President to conduct political business from his residence. Which happens to be the White House.

      Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 1:25 pm

      Private citizen Bush has been out of office for 8 years. Don’t you think it’s about time to stop talking in the present tense as if his email practices are possible violations of the law? Bush was thoroughly investigated before he left office and exonerated.

      Hillary is still being investigated because she decided to use an illegal private server for all her business, which we only found out about years after she left office.

      Again, they’re not remotely comparable.

      Here’s one of your standard leftist talking points. Jeb Bush used a private email server, too. See! See! Both sides do it. Why don’t you take that and run with it, just for fun.

      Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      Also I’m quoting from a State Dept. IG’s letter that was only made public at the end of may. The FBi is still investigating. You on the other hand. You’re quoting from Wikipedia.

      Are you trying to discredit yourself?

      Arminius: t would have been a violation of the Hatch Act if they didn’t use RNC computers, RNC servers, and RNC email.

      The White House admitted that official government business had been conducted on private accounts, and that they were not preserved.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 2:35 pm

        No, it didn’t. You made that up.

          Scott Stanzel, deputy White House press secretary: “some official e-mails have potentially been lost.”
          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12emails.html?_r=0

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2016 at 7:58 pm

          Key word: “potentially”. He didn’t admit anything, he just couldn’t rule it out. When you’re using multiple email accounts it’s all too easy to inadvertently send something from the wrong one. I know that from personal experience.

          Rove et al were doing primarily political work, which legally had to be done on the private server. If in the middle of such work an official email came in and they answered it, it’s possible that the answer may have been sent from the private account. That’s not an admission that it happened, just an acknowledgment that it’s possible. What there certainly seems no sign of is a deliberate policy of always doing so.

          So, no. We didn’t make it up.

          Furthermore thousands of emails were sent from private email accounts to government email accounts concerning official business, so the fact is that private email accounts were being used for official business.

          How many were sent from private email accounts to other private email accounts isn’t known — because millions of emails were lost. To pretend they were few in number is simply not supportable based on the evidence.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2016 at 12:02 am

          Yes, you did make it up. Contrary to your claim, the White House did not admit that official government business had been conducted on private accounts. Again you ignored the key word, “potentially”.

          Milhouse: Contrary to your claim, the White House did not admit that official government business had been conducted on private accounts. Again you ignored the key word, “potentially”.

          They admitted to losing millions of emails, many of which contained official business, which we know because some of them were preserved on dotgov accounts. You’re cutting this one rather fine. The fact is that government records were lost. There is a reasonable suspicion that officials were trying to avoid oversight.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2016 at 1:18 pm

          We know nothing of the kind. And no, it is not reasonable to suppose they were trying to evade oversight, since the reason for their using the private server is very clear: the bulk of their work was political, and legally had to be done on a private server.

          Milhouse: We know nothing of the kind.

          “In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server.”
          http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/missing-white-house-emails

The FBI investigation, according to Comney found the Hillary betrayed our country by committing the crime of mishandling classified information but didn’t recommend prosecution because the laws don’t apply to her.

Arminius: I don’t know which section best applies to Hillary but by using a private server located on her own property outslide the State Dept. she definitely removed records, concealed them, and ultimately destroyed many of them.

And Powell used a private email account for official business, but didn’t keep the required records. Instead of this being some sort of strange, bent, right-wing, paranoid crime, it’s an administrative matter that indicates a need for better policies that can keep pace with the times.

    Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Powell used a private account at a time when there were no official accounts, and no rules about the use of private ones. By 2009 there were clear rules, which Clinton knowingly broke.

    Powell didn’t use an unsecure private server; he used AOL, which has good security. Clinton used her own server, which she failed to maintain to industry standards of security.

    Powell had no intent to evade FOIA. It simply never occurred to him that his email was subject to that, and nobody ever asked him to submit copies for FOIA. Clinton knew very well that her official email was subject to FOIA, and that is why she insisted on using her own private server.

    Nothing Powell sent was classified at the time; Clinton claimed that the same was true of her, but that was a brazen lie.

      Milhouse: Powell used a private account at a time when there were no official accounts, and no rules about the use of private ones.

      But there were laws about preserving government records. And there were laws concerning carelessness with classified information.

      Milhouse: Powell didn’t use an unsecure private server; he used AOL, which has good security.

      Which means that Powell’s emails were available to AOL and its employees.

      Milhouse: Powell had no intent to evade FOIA.

      There’s that word, “intent”.

      Milhouse: Clinton knew very well that her official email was subject to FOIA, and that is why she insisted on using her own private server.

      She wanted to keep her private emails private, while she expected her official emails would be preserved when sent to government email addresses. If she were so nefarious, it would make no sense to not simply have two email addresses.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 12:11 am

        There were laws about preserving government records, but there were no rules defining email as government records.

        Yes, there were laws concerning carelessness with classified information. Powell never included any classified information in his email communications.

        Yes, his email was accessible to AOL and its employees. So what? There was nothing classified there. The point is that he took reasonable care with the security of his account, the same care that anyone else in his position at the time would have taken. AOL is a respectable and law-abiding corporation and can be expected to hire reliable people in its security department. It was perfectly reasonable for Powell to rely on it to secure his email. Clinton did not take reasonable care at all. Her email was wide open and Comey said it’s very likely that it was broken into by foreign entities.

        “There’s that word, “intent”.”

        Um, yes. It’s a perfectly cromulent word. Did you mean something by that comment?

        You say Clinton “expected her official emails would be preserved when sent to government email addresses”. What about her official email to non-government addresses? In any case, the rules at that point were clear that she could not do this. She did it because she wanted to hide her official email from FOIA.

          Milhouse: There were laws about preserving government records, but there were no rules defining email as government records.

          Rules are meant for guidance, but don’t replace laws. Email is a government record.

          Milhouse: Powell never included any classified information in his email communications.

          Not intentionally.

          Milhouse: There was nothing classified there.

          The inspector general disagrees, the same inspector general that made determinations about Clinton’s emails.

          Milhouse: AOL is a respectable and law-abiding corporation and can be expected to hire reliable people in its security department.

          At least he didn’t use Gmail. Their bots read every word in every email. He would have been inundated with ads for “Great deals on spy gear!”

          Milhouse: Clinton did not take reasonable care at all. Her email was wide open

          Clinton’s server had some level of security.

          Milhouse: and Comey said it’s very likely that it was broken into by foreign entities.

          No. He said “we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

          Milhouse: What about her official email to non-government addresses?

          She presumably assumed those to be primarily non-official business.

          Milhouse: She did it because she wanted to hide her official email from FOIA.

          That doesn’t make sense, though. To do that, you create a dark-Hillary email account that you use strictly for nefarious, though non-official purposes. Using the same account actually exposes all her emails to scrutiny. Sounds more like an old person late-adopter syndrome.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm

          Rules are meant for guidance, but don’t replace laws. Email is a government record.

          Wrong. Rules define how the laws apply. Without the rule there is no law. Until 2009 there was no rule applying the federal records law to email, so it didn’t apply.

          Milhouse: Powell never included any classified information in his email communications.

          Not intentionally.

          No, not at all.

          Milhouse: There was nothing classified there.

          The inspector general disagrees, the same inspector general that made determinations about Clinton’s emails.

          Bullshit. The IG found only information that Clinton’s people retroactively classified.

          Milhouse: Clinton did not take reasonable care at all. Her email was wide open

          Clinton’s server had some level of security.

          Which was not even close to industry standard. That is the legal definition of negligence.

          Milhouse: What about her official email to non-government addresses?

          She presumably assumed those to be primarily non-official business.

          That makes no sense. She was sending the email, and therefore knew whether it was business or private. When she sent business email to a private address she knew damn well that it was not being preserved, and she did so intentionally.

          Milhouse: She did it because she wanted to hide her official email from FOIA.

          That doesn’t make sense, though. To do that, you create a dark-Hillary email account that you use strictly for nefarious, though non-official purposes. Using the same account actually exposes all her emails to scrutiny.

          How does it expose them? She didn’t expect this ever to come out. It didn’t come out until the Benghazi committee subpoenaed her email from the State Department, and was told to everyone’s astonishment that they didn’t have any. That was years after she had left office, and in those years she had not turned over even one message, nor had she been asked to, because nobody knew about this.

          Milhouse: Without the rule there is no law. Until 2009 there was no rule applying the federal records law to email, so it didn’t apply.

          The inspector general found Powell did not comply with policies on preserving work-related emails.

          Milhouse: The IG found only information that Clinton’s people retroactively classified.

          The State Department’s internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.
          http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secretaries-handled-classified-material-private-email-state-dept/story?id=37404084

    Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    Collin Powell was Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005.

    What makes you think the regulations for using email and electronic record keeping was at all the same then as they were for Clinton from 2009 to 2013?

    https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/10/02/E9-23613/federal-records-management-revision#sec-1236-2

    Note the date in URL

    “1236.22 What are the additional requirements for managing electronic mail records?”

    Got that? Additional requirements in 2009. Oh, here’s one:

    “(5)(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

    Also the State Department didn’t have a policy against the routine use of private email accounts for work purposes until 2005.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804

    “The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.

    The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over Clinton’s reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of specific rules on when and how official documents had to be preserved during her years as secretary.”

    This will stun you, considering Hillary Clintons worldwide reputation for brutal honesty in all situations, but she and her defenders are lying. The rules weren’t so fuzzy that any honest person could think she could use a private email server exclusively. And they weren’t so fuzzy that the correct answer to “when and how should I preserve my records” is “never” and “not by any of the available means whatsoever.”

    They didn’t operate under the same regulations. That’s what’s really stupid about Clinton’s constant refrain that her practices were like her predecessors. Neither Rice nor Powell could have violated the NARA record keeping regulations. They were both gone before those regulations went into force so the same records weren’t required of them. And Powell left State in January 2005, certainly before the policy against the routine use of personal email went into effect. And Rice never used any email, personal or official.

    Oddly Clinton is being honest for once in her life when she says her practices were similar to her predecessors. She’s admitting she’s admitting she’s guilty as charged to violating rules that existed when she was at DoS but didn’t exist for her predecessors. Finally she says something that’s true; she didn’t obey either laws or regulations.

    What a brilliant woman!

      Arminius: Additional requirements in 2009.

      As her official business was being sent to government accounts, she thought that was sufficient for preservation.

      Arminius: Also the State Department didn’t have a policy against the routine use of private email accounts for work purposes until 2005.

      Aides to Condoleezza Rice sent her official emails after that policy was in place. These policies have administrative not criminal penalties. No one has suggested that Rice’s aids should be punished.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 12:16 am

        As her official business was being sent to government accounts, she thought that was sufficient for preservation.

        1. What of her official business email that was not sent to government accounts?

        2. In any case that was not her decision to make. There were clear rules and she broke them.

        Condoleeza Rice did not use email. For any purpose, official or not. How many times must you be told that for it to sink in?

          Milhouse: 1. What of her official business email that was not sent to government accounts?

          She presumably thought they would not be official business. However, that was clearly not the case. Her email was kept on the server, though, and she had her lawyers sort through the emails to find official emails. This process was not complete, so some emails were not included. The claim she had “wiped” the server were false, and some of these emails were recovered.

          Milhouse: 2. In any case that was not her decision to make. There were clear rules and she broke them.

          Breaking policy is subject to administrative sanction, not criminal indictment.

          Zachriel: Aides to Condoleezza Rice sent her official emails after that policy was in place.

          Milhouse: Condoleeza Rice did not use email.

          Z: Aides to Condoleezza Rice …

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm

          Milhouse: 1. What of her official business email that was not sent to government accounts?

          She presumably thought they would not be official business. However, that was clearly not the case.

          How could she think an email about official business was not about official business?

          Her email was kept on the server, though, and she had her lawyers sort through the emails to find official emails.

          Only after she was caught. Her plan was never to turn anything over.

          The claim she had “wiped” the server were false, and some of these emails were recovered.

          The claim was true, or all the email would have been recovered. In any case, it was her lawyer’s claim, in his attempt to resist having to give it up.

          Milhouse: 2. In any case that was not her decision to make. There were clear rules and she broke them.

          Breaking policy is subject to administrative sanction, not criminal indictment.

          Wrong. The rules implement the Federal Records law. And even if they weren’t, breaking department policy is evidence of bad faith and a guilty state of mind, which makes the breach of the classification laws intentional.

          Zachriel: Aides to Condoleezza Rice sent her official emails after that policy was in place.

          Milhouse: Condoleeza Rice did not use email.

          Z: Aides to Condoleezza Rice …

          Are you thick or just thick? She did not use email. Therefore nobody ever sent her anything.

          Milhouse: How could she think an email about official business was not about official business?

          This one isn’t that hard to follow. Most official business would be sent to dotgov accounts. Most non-official business would be sent to non-dotgov accounts. The problem is the over-reliance on this generalization.

          Milhouse: Only after she was caught. Her plan was never to turn anything over.

          Nonetheless, she did keep the emails, and turned them over when asked.

          Milhouse: The claim was true, or all the email would have been recovered.

          If the server were wiped, then none of the emails could have been recovered.

          Milhouse: In any case, it was her lawyer’s claim, in his attempt to resist having to give it up.

          Do you have a citation?

          Milhouse: Wrong. The rules implement the Federal Records law.

          No one is charged unless you can prove intent.

          Milhouse: And even if they weren’t, breaking department policy is evidence of bad faith and a guilty state of mind, which makes the breach of the classification laws intentional.

          Then Bush and Rove should go to jail for deleting thousands of emails concerning official business, including the politically charged issue of the attorney firings.

          Milhouse: She did not use email.

          Aides to Condoleezza Rice sent {} official emails after that policy was in place.

What’s especially interesting is that the original poster apparently doesn’t understand Comey’s statement as to why he didn’t recommend criminal charges. While one may disagree, his reason is clear and defensible.

    Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    His reason is clear but not at all defensible. What’s especially interesting is that you think a professor of law didn’t understand Comey’s statement. What do you think he misunderstood about it?

      Are you referring to the professor of law who wrote, “Either Comey is the dumbest person on earth, or he thinks we are,” with regards to the highly respected head of the FBI?

      If this is a criminal offense, then Powell and countless others are felons. Rather, the problem is that technology has far outpaced policy and procedures.

        Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 6:59 pm

        You would be more convincing if you could demonstrate, just once, you know what you’re talking about.

        You didn’t even know what legal and regulatory regime Powell operated under when he was Secretary of State, and how different it was in critical respects from the one Clinton

        Now you’re doing what leftists do. Retreating back into willful ignorance of the facts.

          Arminius: You didn’t even know what legal and regulatory regime Powell operated under when he was Secretary of State

          The same law that the original post claims applies to Clinton, the Espionage Act of 1917.
          http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim

          Colin Powell put official business, including classified information, on a third-party server, with no idea who had access to those servers. (Maybe it’s in the privacy notice.)

          Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 12, 2016 at 12:19 am

          The Espionage ACt of 1917 doesn’t say anything about email. The regulations for how the act applies to email were not yet written. And no, he did not send any information that was classified at the time. Clinton did.

          Milhouse: The Espionage Act of 1917 doesn’t say anything about email.

          Yet, that is the law that is at issue. However, the Act is more than broad enough to include email.

          By the way, “gross negligence” refers to, for instance, leaving a package of secret documents in a bush, then claiming that it wasn’t a drop-off to an enemy spy. The application has been that there should be sufficient evidence of intent for a criminal charge, not mere carelessness, which is handled administratively.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 8:08 pm

        What Arminius said. And yes, I am referring to that highly respected professor. On what basis do you think his assessment is flawed? Surely he is in a far better position to assess the credibility of Comey’s statement than you are.

      Keep in mind that the majority of legal analysts (outside the bubble, of course) thought that Clinton would not be charged based on information that was publicly available.

        Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 6:47 pm

        There’s the problem. You’re relying on Bill Maher, John Oliver, Andrea Mitchell, and the Congressional Democrats for legal analysis. Comedians, court toadies, and throne sniffers.

        Barry in reply to Zachriel. | July 10, 2016 at 8:11 pm

        Only because they knew the fix was in. As it has been for the Clinton’s for 40 years.

        Barry: Only because they knew the fix was in. As it has been for the Clinton’s for 40 years.

        No. We’re relying upon a number of independent legal sources, nearly all of whom believed there was no there there. Now that the official answer has been provided, there’s nothing to do but to attack the messenger: “Either Comey is the dumbest person on earth, or he thinks we are.”

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 9:58 am

          “No. We’re relying upon a number of independent legal sources, nearly all of whom believed there was no there there.”

          Wrong. The Clintons have been getting away with breaking the law the entire time they have been in public office. It’s not even close. Anyone with a functioning mind knows this. Anyone with a functioning mind can look at Comey’s record and find that when it comes to prosecuting politicians, only republicans will be real targets.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 4:17 pm

          Right now Ben Rhodes is laughing at you, Zachriel.

          http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

          You’re proof this will keep working for them.

          “…In an astounding New York Times piece by David Samuels, senior White House officials gleefully confess they use friendly reporters and nonprofits as public relations tools in the selling of President Obama’s foreign policy — and can do it almost at will because these tools are ignorant, will believe what they’re told, will essentially take dictation and are happy to be used just to get the information necessary for a tweet or two.

          …The mastermind of the Obama machine is Ben Rhodes, a New Yorker who joined the Obama campaign as a speechwriter in 2007 and has risen to become the most influential foreign-policy hand in the White House.

          …It could only work if water-carriers did the White House’s job for it, and nonprofit water-carriers did their faithful duty. “We created an echo chamber,” Rhodes tells Samuels about the journalists and think-tankers who were discussing the Iran deal based almost entirely on information given to them by the White House. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.””

          Keep thinking those sources were independent. Just as when Obama wanted to get his Iran “deal” he wanted Clinton as his successor. But he didn’t want you to think she was gettinga special deal. You fell for it, because she did get a special deal. I’ve been around a couple of these prosecutions in the Navy. There was plenty of there there. Lots of “reasonable” prosecutors could have gotten a conviction. Most galling was when Comey said that the gross negligence standard was possibly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has never found the gross negligence standard unconstitutional for all sorts of crimes.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-583.ZO.html

          “…We granted certiorari, 540 U.S. 1176 (2004), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether state DUI offenses similar to the one in Florida, which either do not have a mens rea component or require only a showing of negligence in the operation of a vehicle, qualify as a crime of violence…”

          I’m not going to go into detail beyond pointing out that this was a felony DUI case due to two counts of causing serious injury, which caused the legal resident to be stripped of his residency status and deported after serving his 2.5 year sentence. Just look at the language. The court distinguishes between strict liability, which does not even require a prosecutor to establish mens rea, and negligence which is enough to establish a minimally but sufficient criminally culpable state of mind. The court doesn’t say it is unconstitutional to send people to prison without establishing any mens rea at all or “or require only a showing of negligence.” Simply it goes on later to say that negligence does not establish sufficiently culpable state of mind to prove someone committed a “crime of violence.” I agree. But no one is accusing Hillary Clinton of committing a crime of violence.

          In other words the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with me and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (or, rather, it’s the other way around). THE SCOTUS DOES NOT AGREE WITH COMEY. Gross negligence is sufficient to establish one had the culpable state of mind to hold someone legally liable for a whole host of crimes. Including unauthorized possession and retention of classified material. Gross or criminal negligence is:

          “when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a GROSS DEVIATION from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.”

          If it’s not an unconstitutional standard even for a felony conviction. It is sufficient to hold a father to account for negligent homicide for forgetting his daughter is in the back seat of a car on a hot day while he goes and takes a four hour nap. “Reasonable prosecutors” get felony convictions proving that level of mens rea no doubt every day in this country, and Comey is too smart a lawyer to fail to know that. So he lied about it because otherwise, based upon what he had already said, he’d have to recommend prosecution. And you fell for it.

          Confirmed. Comey thinks you’re dumb, Zachriel. Can’t say he’s wrong. it’s like he knows you. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

          As noted, that would mean Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice would also be criminally liable. You are conflating policy and procedure with criminal behavior. Even the Bush email scandal didn’t result in charges, because they couldn’t legally prove it was intended to circumvent the law. That’s why most experts thought there would be no indictment against Clinton.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 5:34 pm

          Got it, Zachriel. Since Collin Powell, Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005, broke the same rules Clinton did. The State Department policy on email use that didn’t take effect until 2005, after he left in January of that year.

          And he broke the same electronic record keeping regulations that Clinton broke. The ones NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration promulgated in 2009. Clinton’s first year as Secretary of State, and four years after Powell left.

          And nearly a year after Rice left. Who, by the way, didn’t use email and therefore complied with the 2005 regulation. Which makes her just as much a criminal, too. How dare Powell and Rice fail to comply with future laws!

          How dare they have “classified” information on their unclassified computers. “Classified” information which was originated by the State Department which they had the authority to conclude was unclassified due their lawful authority as original classifiers. Which the State Department later claimed was classified because Clinton needed cover for the fact that she had classified information from other agencies such as CIA, NSA, and NGIA. Which Clinton had no legal authority to downgrade.

          But forget the fact that Powell and Rice properly exercised their legal authority as original classification authorities and complied with the regulations in force during their tenures while Clinton did not. They’re just the same as Clinton because Clinton fans need them to be. And we all have to admit it because you’ll get all stompy foot and throw a tantrum.

          Zachriel, please keep it up. There’s no set of facts you can’t ignore to draw a false equivalence. All you’re proving is you’re a typical dishonest leftist. And that’s fine with me.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 5:45 pm

          Why stop with Powell and Rice? I hear Cordell Hull, Secretary of State from 1933 to 1944 used to bring what he determined were unclassified documents home during WWII so he could work after dinner. And Clinton’s friends at the State Department just found them in the archives and upgraded them to Top Secret.

          So he’s worse than Clinton, because he had more Top Secret documents in his desk at home during his tenure than Hillary ever had on her home brew server.

          See! See! They all did it. And anyone who says otherwise is just a hypocrite per the Clinton/Zachriel house rules.

          I think I’m getting the hang of this.

          Arminius: Since Collin Powell, Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005, broke the same rules Clinton did.

          The law at issue is the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Federal Records Act of 1950.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 7:17 pm

          Keep proving my point, Zachriel. You’re just a typical dishonest leftist who will ingore the facts and say anything to draw a false equivalence.

          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority

          Powell, Rice, and Clinton were all original classification authorities in their position as Secretary of State. They all had the authority to make the final determination if information originated by the State Department was unclassified, classified, and if so at what level.

          The only information on Powell’s and Rice’s computers that Hillary’s friends at DoS claim is classified was originated by DoS. Powell and Rice said it was unclassified. That was entirely within their legal authority. If Hillary Clinton had done the same thing I would not be hammering home the fact she violated the Espionage Act.

          She didn’t do the same thing. She put any goddamed thing she wanted on her home brew server. Including Top Secret codeword intel produced by CIA, NSA, and NGIA.

          Powell and Rice stayed in their lane. Clinton did not, wildly exceeded her authority, and in doing so broke the law.

          Hillary’s partners are having exactly the effect the wanted. On partisan fools like you.

          Again. Keep it up. Keep showing the world you are too stupid to tell the difference. I enjoy it.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 7:26 pm

          “…and the Federal Records Act of 1950.”

          Genius, Zachriel, sheer genius. You’ve got me on that one. Because of course the FRA of 1950 laid out clear guidance about preserving email.

          Do you really want this well deserved abuse? Do you want to be flayed for demonstrating your utter stupidity?

          Do you want me to explain why your arguments keep getting more idiotic as you desperately try to maintain the illusion you have a point? Because I will.

          But I’d rather see you flail around a while longer, pathetic leftist drone.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 7:35 pm

          Zachriel, I’m selling a mint condition, lovingly maintained 1928 Boeing 747. Here’s your chance to have a private jet. I can’t tell you the price because then everyone would want it.

          I was just going to put it on Craigslist but I thought I’d offer it to you first. Because I’m just nice that way.

          Let me know.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 11, 2016 at 7:57 pm

          Don’t wait too long to decide about the ’28 747, though. My brother lets me park it his hangar but now he says he needs the space. It really is in good shape, right down to the flapper-era interior. They just don’t make them like they used to.

          I’m really looking forward to you explaining how Powell failed to comply with the FRA of NINETEEN FIFTY. I mean, how many days after you send the email does the FRA of NINETEEN FIFTY give you before you must archive in your department’s electronics storage system for preservation? This really should be interesting. I’m sure we’ll all enjoy it.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 12:32 am

          Neither the Espionage Act of 1917 nor the Federal Records Act of 1950 mention email; the State Dept regulations on how to apply the Espionage Act to email were not made until 2005, and the NARA regulations applying the FRA to email were not made until 2009.

          And, as Arminius pointed out, Rice did not use email at all, and all the information that Powell and Rice’s aides used was within their authority to classify or declassify. If they said it wasn’t classified then it wasn’t. That was not the case with Clinton.

          Also, as Arminius said, the information they sent was only classified now because Clinton’s people decided to retroactively classify it, not for any national security purpose, but for the purpose of making Clinton look less bad.

          Arminius: Powell and Rice said it was unclassified.

          The inspector general determined that the emails are classified, though Powell and Rice say they were not marked classified at the time.

          Arminius: Don’t wait too long to decide about the ’28 747, though.

          Keep in mind that most legal analysts didn’t think an indictment was warranted, and now that the decision for no indictment has been made, there’s nothing to do but attack the messenger.

          Milhouse: Neither the Espionage Act of 1917 nor the Federal Records Act of 1950 mention email

          But they do refer to records. Keep in mind that it is the Espionage Act of 1917 that is the law at issue.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 1:17 pm

          Zachriel, normally if I thought I was debating somebody who was arguing in good faith I would ask that person to read this and tell me who has the final authority under law to determine how and if information produced by the Dept. of State should be classified. Since I know you won’t be able to give an honest answer I’ll just do it myself.

          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority

          “Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled “Classified National Security Information” (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as “Top Secret” or “Secret”:

          TOP SECRET

          …Departments and Agencies:

          The Secretary of State…”

          You will not find any Inspector General listed anywhere in this document as an OCA. It is entirely inqonsequental what he now claims. Which is why even Comey said that documents upgraded to classified can not form a basis for prosecution. Powell and Rice and only Powell and Rice had the legal authority to make the final determination as to whether or not information originated by the Department of State is or is not classified. They made that call. No individual on earth outside of the President can overturn their decision.

          And if that were all there was with Clinton I would say the same thing. She and only she could make the final determination about classification of information originated at DoS and an IG has no authority to gainsay her. But, she decided to oerrule the OCAs at CIA, NSA, NGIA, and who knows what else. That’s why she violated the Espionage Act and Powell and Rice didn’t. Because just as with the DoS OCA, no individual on earth can overturn the determinations by the OCAs at CIA, NSA, or any other agency or department. Clinton and only Clinton, arrogated that power to herself and in doing so committed a felony.

          And your legal experts are just flat wrong. As I mentioned servicemembers have been prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.793(f) for far, far less.

          http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/director-comeys-clinton-standard-wouldve-helped-this-marine-avoid-a-conviction/

          “… [P]rosecution under section 793(f)(1) is [not] precluded of a person who, being entrusted with an enumerated item or information relating to the national defense, in some way violates the terms of his entrustment: violation of the terms of this kind of entrustment does not terminate the entrustment. The terms of any entrustment of national defense information necessarily include a requirement of due ‘care, use or disposal of it,’… [otherwise] many, if not all, acts of gross negligence that constituted a violation of section 793(f)(1) would terminate the entrustment and preclude prosecution under the section.

          Once [Roller] discovered he had inadvertently taken classified information with him, albeit through his own gross negligence, he nevertheless had a continuing duty to safeguard the information until such time as he had an opportunity to return it to the Government’s care. While not authorized to have such material with him outside a secure area, appellant was nevertheless entrusted with its care once he discovered it in his possession…. [Roller’s] negligence in failing to safeguard the material once discovered resulted in its loss since it was shortly discovered and taken away by unauthorized third parties.

          Appellant could be and was prosecuted for such loss.”

          In the 1993 case of Marined SGT Rickie Roller, he accidentally grabbed a few classified documents as he hastily packed what he thought were only personal belongings from his desk upon transfer to another duty station. That was sufficient to constitute gross negligence per federal courts. Comey is also full of shit.

          And although you address yourself to Milhouse, I see you realize that you have stepped into a pile of shit by bringing up the Federal Records Act of NINETEEN FIFTY. Of course the FRA mentions records. It’s in the effin’ name of the act. But they couldn’t possibly have envisioned what would constitute records in the 21st century. Yes, emails, but how about texts and instant messaging? That’s why it is NARA, the National Archives and Recrods Administration that has the responsibility to promulgate regulation to advise the executive branch on what is a record and how to preserve it. And that would imply there must be a means to preserve it. If there is no way to preserve an instant message, then you can’t hold an earlier Secretary of State to the same standard as a later Secretary of State who fails to use a preservation system when one is developed per NARA regulations.

          Which is precisely what you are doing with your tu quoque logical fallacy. Powell and Rice can not be faulted for the fact they didn’t maintain records in the manner prescribed by the NARA regulations promulgated in 2009. They had already departed. They could only be held to account for abiding by regulations that existed at the time. Only one Secretary of State could and did violate those regulations. And keep in mind, those regulations implement the FRA of NINETEEN FIFTY as technology changes; violate the regulations, you violate the FRA. And that one Secretary was Hillary Clinton.

          But enough of your juvenile appeals to hypocrisy. The only reason any one engages in fallacious tu quoque argumentation is because they can not defend their position on its own merits. As you can not defend Hillary Clinton’s actions on their own merits. Same goes with your appeals to authorities.

          Your authorities are wrong. I’ve provided evidence; the prosecution of USMC SGT Rickie Roller under 18 U.S.C.793(f) for far, far less than what was contained in the fact pattern Comey laid out concerning the email and security practices of Hillary Clinton. And his wasn’t the only prosecution under 793(f) that Comey and your “experts” either ignored or were entirely ignorant of. Either way, that disqualifies both of the authorities you fallaciously appeal to as experts.

          There is only one conclusion a sane, honest person can arrive at, Zachriel. If you are well connected in Washington DC, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and most importantly your last name is Clinton you get a pass while other people go to prison. Comey pretends nobody goes to prison for this, therefore we’d be treating Clinton “differently” and more harshly than other people because of her “fame.” He is either a liar or a fool because he is getting exactly backward. No doubt he is playing on the ignorance of hyper-partisan leftists like you, Zachriel, and as you have amply demonstrated no one will go broke betting on that.

          Hillary Clinton gets a special deal that enlisted members of the armed forces like Rickie Roller do not ever get. There is no way around it.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 1:42 pm

          No, the IG found only that the information contained in some of these messages is now classified. That is, after Clinton’s people deliberately classified it for no other purpose than to make her offence look not as bad.

          The material Clinton sent, by contrast, was classified at the time, and she did not have the authority to declassify it. Some of it was even marked classified; some of it was not marked because she had instructed her aides to remove the markings; and some was not marked at all, but it was her duty to recognise the information as classified by its nature.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

          “The inspector general determined that the emails are classified, though Powell and Rice say they were not marked classified at the time.”

          No, Zachriel, that is not what they are saying. You still don’t get what an OCA’s (also known as an original classifier) responsibilities consist of. They are not playing on your ignorance like the Comey/Clinton team. Although I must admit your ignorance does appear to be insurmountable.

          They are saying the INFORMATION was not classified. As original classifiers had the INFORMATION been classified they would have marked it as such. You apparently are the densest element known to man. When new information is developed or received, it doesn’t arrive with classification markings. That’s the job of an original classification authority, also known as an original classifier. They are the first to determine if the information is classified or not and if it is, to mark it appropriately.

          This is why Clinton would be convicted if this ever saw the inside of a court room. Her lies may impess you, Zachriel, but they wouldn’t impress a judge. If she were charged under 793(f), the standard being gross negligence, Clinton would simply be demonstrating that she is grossly negligent by playing dumb. Any OCA who doesn’t know if information is classified or not unless it is already marked is grossly negligent. It is their job to be the first ones to put the markings on it.

          A judge would instruct the jury to that effect. When HIllary Clinton pretends as an OCA she can’t be expected to know classified information unless it’s already marked she’d simply be convicting herself under the gross negligence standard.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 2:33 pm

          “No, the IG found only that the information contained in some of these messages is now classified. That is, after Clinton’s people deliberately classified it for no other purpose than to make her offence look not as bad.”

          You are exactly right, Milhouse. But I want to add it wouldn’t be the IG making that determination. An original classifier would have to make the call.

          I also need to point out that even though the E.O. designates executive agency and department heads as OCAs, the E.O. gives them the authority to delegate that responsibility to other individuals. As they must. These are long-term career bureaucrats who continue from one Secretary of State to the e next, with each new Secretary of State simply rubberstamping their continued appointment to the job. It works the same in all executive branch departments and agencies.

          Nobody expects the Secretary of State to sit around and determine the classification status of all information originated by his or her department. That would obviously be ridiculous. In fact it’s the opposite. Andy President worth his salt would fire the head of a department or agency if he found one of his agency or department heads was wasting his or her time on relative trivialities.

          Which is why I’ve been careful to say the Secretary of State is the final authority on whether or not information originated by the DoS is classified or not. Which means they have to know how to do the job, even though they don’t do it on a day-to-day basis. All people designated as OCAs are required to get initial training and then periodic refresher training per he E.O. I linked to earlier. That would have included Hillary Clinton, as he President’s designee, and anyone she delegated the responsibility to under her authority as Secretary of State.

          I’d be curious to know, did she refuse the training? Just as I’d be curious to know what training did she have in the securing and handling classified information. When she became Secretary of State she would have been “read in” to the TS/SCI program. I don’t think there’s any way she could have avoided that; she signed various NDAs affirming that she understood her responsibilities as well as the consequences for unauthorized disclosure or negligent handling of classified information.

          But I can see her blowing off the annual refresher training that everyone else at DoS with similar clearances would have been required to attend.

          Because if she did abuse her authority and refuse training that was, in her estimation, only for the “little people” and not for an important person like her, that would really count against her if this ever saw the inside of a court room. She couldn’t play dumb. If she tried she would just be putting her head in the noose. She would be demonstrating that, yes indeed, she is grossly negligent. She knew what she was supposed to do and refused to do it. Through her own actions creating a situation of grave risk, failing to acknowledge the situation, thereby grossly deviating from the duty of care that any reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.

          Arminius: And your legal experts are just flat wrong.

          If you are referring to the legal experts who said there would be no recommendation for indictment by the FBI, then they were obviously correct. Indeed, it was a unanimous recommendation of the investigators.

          The State Department’s internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.

          Arminius: I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as “Top Secret” or “Secret”: TOP SECRET …Departments and Agencies: The Secretary of State…”

          “The State Department’s internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.”

          They do not say what the source of the classification was, whether from State or some other department, nor does Powell claim they were not classified based on his authority as Secretary of State, but does argue that they are innocuous and wrongly classified. Many of Clinton’s emails were also retroactively classified.

          Arminius: Once [Roller] discovered he had inadvertently taken classified information with him, albeit through his own gross negligence, he nevertheless had a continuing duty to safeguard the information until such time as he had an opportunity to return it to the Government’s care.

          The difference is that Roller was convicted on the secondary neglect, when Roller realized the security risk he had created, and didn’t act. With Clinton, the investigators apparently believed that the Clinton team never realized the extent of the security risk.

          Arminius: Comey pretends nobody goes to prison for this, therefore we’d be treating Clinton “differently” and more harshly than other people because of her “fame.” He is either a liar or a fool because he is getting exactly backward.

          Sure. Most legal experts say there is no there there, and when the FBI determines there no there there, the only thing left is to attack the messenger.

          This has been going on for, what, a quarter century?

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 12:38 am

          And who is Jay Bookman when he’s at home? Since when is he a legal expert?

          From the linked article: There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought.

          Well, we know that is not at all what Clinton did. We know that some of the documents were marked classified, that a whole lot more had been before her staff deliberately removed the markings at her behest, and that a whole lot more had information that it was her job to recognize as classified whether or not it was marked.

          Milhouse: And who is Jay Bookman when he’s at home?

          It’s not an appeal to authority, so attacking the messenger is not substantive. It’s a summary showing that many legal analysts had found little likelihood of an indictment. Those legal analysts were found to be right, after all. In retrospect, you may want to consider why they were right, while the echochamber was wrong.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 1:45 pm

          It is an appeal to authority — it was proffered to support your claim that “the majority of legal analysts (outside the bubble)” had this view. If Bookman is not an authority then his view is meaningless. And the quote I provided is enough to discredit his view, since it’s contrary to the facts as we know them.

          Milhouse: If Bookman is not an authority then his view is meaningless.

          We weren’t citing Bookman’s view. He just provided a convenient citation and summary.

          “Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.”
          http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

          We provided the information to support the claim that many legal analysts didn’t think there was a legal case against Clinton.

        Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | July 12, 2016 at 8:40 pm

        Zachriel, the fix was in. Your legal experts were political experts. I agree, in DC there are special rules for special people. There was plenty of there there. But when you go beyond Banana Republic childplay and get into the Bolshevik big leagues, no amount of “There” will suffice. That’s the Lavrentiy Beria standard of justice. As he told his boss, Stalin, if you don’t want to convict someone the evidence won’t be there, and if you do want to convict someone the evidence will be there. That’s why to protect her they had to keep it outside of a courtroom. Had it ever made inside a courtroom she would have been convicted.

        Again she can lie and impress you. But she couldn’t lie and impress a judge. She couldn’t get away with “I never realized it was classified.” The judge would have instructed the jury, “Intelligence professionals are expected to recognize classified information by its nature, not by markings. Any intelligence professional who doesn’t do so is grossly negligent. Moreover she is an original classification authority. Not only is she expected to recognize classified information by its nature, she expected to know how it should be classified. Any original classifier incapable of doing so is grossly negligent.”

        You seem to either enjoy having your intelligence insulted or, more likely since you’re a leftist, you enjoy seeing other leftists get away with their lying and their corruption.

        You’re right. This has gone on far too long. As I said earlier you are simply another dishonest leftists. Hillary Clinton held others to account for breeches while she was committing them herself at DoS. Her hypocrisy seems to appeal to you. She has made several public statements during the years she was Secretary of State about the need to protect classified material, and indicated knowledge of the relevant laws and regulations. She knew, yet she juWst couldn’t be bothered to obey the law herself. Laws are for the little people.

        But, thanks for playing. I don’t believe she ever tried to join the Marines, but if she did they didn’t take her because she’s dumber than a box of rocks. At least that’s her, and your, defense of her obvious lawbreaking. So I will concede you that.

        And, no, there was not unanimity on Comey’s team.

          Arminius: Your legal experts were political experts.

          Legal experts, on legal bases, said a prosecution was unlikely.

          “The FBI is still investigating and while the candidate herself and much expert opinion say it’s not going to happen, any indictment could end her campaign”
          https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/10/hillary-clinton-emails-analysis-possible-indictment-fbi

          “The FBI is still investigating and while the candidate herself and much expert opinion say it’s not going to happen, any indictment could end her campaign”
          http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/22/legal-experts-warn-that-indicting-clinton-in-email-case-wont-be-easy/

          “Legal experts have said it’s unlikely Clinton would be formally charged with committing a crime.”
          http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/clinton-email-probe-winds-down-as-republicans-try-to-turn-up-the-heat/

          There are certainly a few experts who say charges were warranted, but that was not the prevalent opinion outside the echochamber. That means, at the very least, it is a reasonable opinion. Now add into that mix the unanimous opinion of career investigators to recommend against indictment.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 13, 2016 at 1:46 pm

          Zachriel, It’s always amusing when someone confuses the bulk of legal experts the press decides to quote as the same thing as the majority of legal experts. Clearly the article at the Blaze and the article at the Guardian, being word-for-word identical, came from the same source. So, yes, I’m sure that the majority of legal opinion that made it into the press said an indictment was unlikely. Do you actually mistake this for the majority of legal opinion? It isn’t the same thing. Did nobody talk to military prosecutors, who have prosecuted the bulk of these cases? Apparently not. And yes, I know Clinton isn’t in the military but the elements of the crime remain the same and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt no matter which federal court system she’d be prosecuted in.

          This is why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Can you prove to me, Zachriel, that the legal “experts” the press chose to cite represents a statistically valid sample of all legal expertise on the subject? No, you can not. This is why you have to talk facts, not consensus.

          As a legal matter the case was a slam dunk. This was demonstrated when Comey said he recommended against prosecution because he could not show intent.

          Two things about Comey’s statements. Intent is not an element of a crime where the standard is gross negligence. Comey was arguing he couldn’t prove Clinton had committed a more serious crime she would not have been charged with. But he could prove the crime Clinton would have been charged with; violating 18 U.S.C.793(f). Hence he had to rewrite the statute to raise the bar. Comey’s fall back position was that he thought the gross negligence standard was unconstitutional. This is laughably false. The SCOTUS has found on numerous occasions that negligence is sufficient to establish mens rea.

          But the second point is this, and this is why I’m talking about your legal experts being political experts as they correctly predicted Comey’s recommendation. None of the above discussion is within the scope of an FBI Director’s lawful authority. The FBI Director isn’t a prosecutor (actually he was also playing the role of defense attorney; more on that later). Comey’s only role should have been to hand the results of his investigation to the prosecutors at DoJ and those prosecutors would have made a professional decision (I’m talking about how the process works as designed, not at the Obama DoJ) of what they could do based upon the facts. The prosecutors at DoJ might want his advice, but other than that he would stay out of the decision making process. But there he was playing the role of prosecutor. This shows this was a political decision, not a legal one. This wasn’t Comey’s decision to make. In fact, the FBI director is not even supposed to offer a recommendation at all (a fact I recently discovered). That is interference in a decision-making process that belongs to another part of the DoJ.

          So, yes, your experts got it right. But they got the politicization of this right.

          You set great store in the fact that other cases where the people have successfully been prosecuted for mishandling classified have resulted from the fact they belatedly realized they had classified information in their possession outside a secure environment, then failed to do the right thing. Whereas Clinton et al never realized (or never acted as if they realized) that there was anything classified they had let out into the wild on Clinton’s server.

          What you don’t realize is if this had ever went to court this would not be a mitigating factor. It would be an aggravating factor. Much of this disinformation seems to be coming from Comey himself, as he takes off his prosecutor’s hat and puts on his defense attorney’s hat:

          http://canadafreepress.com/article/james-comey-hey-maybe-hillarys-not-sophisticated-enough-to-understand-class

          “De Santis: “How would you not then not know that that was something that was inappropriate to do?”

          Comey: “Well, I want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication. I don’t think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment.””

          This is how you know the fix was in. Because Comey is admitting what we in the Navy would call “command failure.” He is admitting they deliberately did not do a thorough investigation. Because I can tell you exactly how you establish Clinton is “sophisticated” enough to understand what high school graduates can understand. You go back and look at the records. Each time she was read in and read out of the program she would have been briefed on this and more. Then there would have been annual refresher training. Not just for her time at the State Department, but when she was on the Senate Armed Services committee.

          Don’t forget about that! (Comey apparently and conveniently did.)

          You establish a papertrail and document that Hillary Clinton on numerous occasions had signed she understood exactly what Comey, her defense attorney, claims she wasn’t “sophisticated” enough to understand.

          It’s not a matter of sophistication but more like enforcing a contract. A contract without which Hillary Clinton would never have received a clearance in the first place. It’s a matter of holding people accountable for what they signed and said they agreed to do under penalty of perjury, under penalty of prosecution, when they signed all the paperwork that comes before they get a TS/SCI clearance and as a condition of retaining a TS/SCI clearance, including the non-disclosure agreements. What Comey is saying here is complete BS. But if you’ve never worked in a classified environment. But Comey knows better.

          Had I been on the committee questioning Comey I would have asked to see those records. If they could produce them it would blow Comey’s “sophistication” argument out of the water. Any person of normal intelligence can understand classification markings, the levels of classification, and the security requirements for their handling, use, storage and destruction. That’s all you need to prove in court. They can deny all they want that they understood, but they signed a contract with the government saying the opposite and had they not they would not have received a clearance.

          If this is the kind of transparent crap Comey has to resort to it makes my case. This was a slam dunk. And I don’t care what your tiny subset of lawyers who the press likes to quote or who get on TV have to say to the contrary. I know how this works. Or rather, how it’s supposed to work. This is a travesty. You may not realize, Zachriel, that Comey is insulting your intelligence. But I realize he’s insulting mine.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 13, 2016 at 1:56 pm

          Another aggravating factor I forgot to mention. Really a damning one if this ever saw the inside of a court room. Hillary Clinton wasn’t just some bureaucrat at DoS. She wasn’t even just another political appointee at DoS. She was the Secretary of State. She was nominally the boss, in theory she was running the operation. Not only was it necessary for her to know what she should do, it would have been her responsibility to ensure the rules, regulations, and programs were in place so everyone else knew what they were supposed to do vis-a-vis information security.

          If this ever went to court Hillary Clinton would have been destroyed. She has zero defenses.

          No wonder the Obama administration had to go such lengths, caring how stupid they look, to protect her.

          Arminius: This is why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

          We aren’t arguing that legal experts are *necessarily* correct, only that in legal matters, a predominant opinion is likely, at the very least, reasonable.

          Arminius: Intent is not an element of a crime where the standard is gross negligence.

          He discussed why intent was necessary. Ignoring that just means you are arguing a strawman position.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 13, 2016 at 4:16 pm

          I’m not ignoring it Zachriel. I’m laughing at it. It’s patently absurd. He spewed some words to the effect that he wouldn’t recommend prosecution unless he could prove intent. But 1) intent is not necessary no matter what word salad Comey pukes out. And 2) he’s not the prosecutor, it’s not his call.

          So I could safely ignore it entirely because he’s the effin’ FBI Director, Zachriel. He’s the investigator, not a prosecutor in this case. The fact that he’s so far out of his lane and talking about intent, as I said earlier, just proves this entire process has been corrupt from start to finish. If you ignore that, you’re arguing against your own straw man.

          Also, note what I said at the end of comment I made at 8:40pm yesterday.

          “And, no, there was not unanimity on Comey’s team.”

          I see no point in continuing here. I’m going to move over to this post just up:

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/07/fbi-agents-believe-lynch-clinton-tarmac-meeting-reflects-inside-deal/

          “The FBI agents who worked on the Hillary Clinton email probe had to sign an NDA to force them not to talk about the investigation. There might be a reason for it…”

          At some point, Zachriel, you’re going to realize what I’ve suspected all along, and knew with certainty the moment Comey started his infamous press conference clearing Hillary Clinton of criminal misconduct. You can’t believe a word Comey says. He was only saying everybody agreed with the decision not to prosecute because he had gagged everybody and expected no dissent. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

          Arminius: “And, no, there was not unanimity on Comey’s team.”

          Do you have evidence of this?

If you could read and understand it, you’d see it does have to do with 18 U.S.C.793(f).

McGuinness, the defendant, is arguing mens rea. He contends that the prosecutors didn’t establish he was in a sufficiently culpable state of mind to be convicted of the crime. Because they only proved he had acted willfully. But that he hadn’t acted in “bad faith – meaning: that he intended to do harm.” Therefore he can’t be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C.793(e), the charge of which he was convicted.

The court is explaining in it’s decision that the prosecutors did not err. They didn’t try to convict McGuinness of a crime he didn’t commit. He is talking about the crime described in 793(a). But as the defendant by his own admission said he didn’t intend to cause harm to the United States or aid a foreign power. So he wasn’t that culpable.

On the other hand he was more culpable than the crime described in 793(f). That level of mens rea or “culpable state of mind” is criminal or gross negligence. The model penal code describes this culpable state of mind as “when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” Note: gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in that situation. The qualifier “gross” is what distinguishes this criminally culpable state of mind from non-criminal negligence. Which would only be sufficient to make one guilty of a civil offense.

This is why Congress wrote the statute this way. There is a hierarchy of blameworthiness based on the actor’s state of mind. The act results in the same amount of harm. It doesn’t matter to the CIA agent if he’s getting skinned alive with a pair of visegrips because someone blew his cover willfully and with the intent to cause harm or did so negligently. Compromising his identity is a a criminal act, but the first perpetrator is more blameworthy than the second. “Gross negligence” as the term is used in 18 U.S.C. establishes a sufficient level of criminal culpability to convict under that section. That’s all the mens rea you need to prove to convict. And If you didn’t understand that at first, don’t worry. Comey has been apparently lawyering for years and he still doesn’t understand basic legal terms. Which I would guess is why Professor Jacobson said Comey is either the dumbest person on earth, or he thinks we are.

But McGuinness had a greater level of culpability. He didn’t merely “grossly deviate from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” McGuinness acted willfully or knowledgeably. The prosecutors had proven that he had exactly the sufficiently culpable state of mind to be guilty of 793(e). The court is letting McGuinness know he was convicted of exactly the right crime. Not too big (793(a)), not too little (793(f)), but just right.

Therefore, the conviction stood. Which is why I can’t see how Comey could have been any great shakes as a prosecutor. Because he’s making the exact same losing argument as McGuinness. He is saying that he has to argue Clinton had greater a greater level of culpability than she actually did have or he can’t get a conviction. In fact, he kept moving the goalposts until he got to the exact same place as McGuinness. Unless she had criminal intent, which I’m taking as she acted with willfulness or knowledge, and also intended to cause harm, no “reasonable prosecutor” would try the case. In other words, Clinton has to be guilty under 793(a) she can’t be guilty at all.

There’s a reason why, Zachriel, everybody but you recognizes Comey’s explanation why he didn’t recommend prosecution for the babbling, drooling nonsense it is.

Comey said that Clinton committed a felony. He said she was “extremely careless” (i.e. “grossly negligent” by the legal definition) with classified info. That is a felony.

Intent is not needed.

The evidence is extreme. A refusal to prosecute is a dereliction of duty. So Lynch should be impeached and prosecuted, if she doesn’t indict.

    Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | July 10, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    And there we run into the same problem as we do with impeaching 0bama, and we did with impeaching WJC. A guaranteed acquittal in the senate, which will be taken by the public as a vindication. What good can possibly result from that?

    Arminius in reply to InEssence. | July 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    No, InEssence, intent is not required. You don’t have to prove Clinton intended to commit a crime to hold someone criminally accountable. That was the point of my book-length comments yesterday at 9:11p.m. and today at 4:17p.m.

    Of course, Comey had to pretend that he would have to prove intent otherwise it would be “unconstitutional” to try and convict Hillary Clinton. And he didn’t care what that looks like to people. A trait he shares with Barack Obama, the Clintons, and Loretta Lynch, who went to meet Billy Jeff in Phoenix for her job interview prior to Comey’s announcement; why give a rat’s ass what it looks like to the little people who can’t do anything about it as long as you get what you want.

    But if you look at the videos of Trey Gowdy grilling Comey, he demonstrates that Comey did have enough to prove intent. Recall Hillary Clinton’s initial speech on the matter she made at the UN. She said she was very well aware of the rules for handling classified material. As well she should be; she signed a number of non-disclosure agreements that laid out the rules for handling classified material, whether marked on unmarked. And she agreed that if she disclosed the information to anyone not authorized to receive it or, get this, handled it negligently the government could prosecute her under a laundry list of statutes. Including 18 U.S.C. 793.

    So Gowdy proceeded to ask Comey about all her lies intended to exonerate herself publicly. Also know as false exculpatory statements. Which can and are used to demonstrate a guilty mind sufficient to prove inent. On the one hand she knew what she should have done. On the other, as events unfolded she demonstrably didn’t do any of it. Deliberately.

    One after the other Gowdy asked if one of her statements were true. And one after the other Comey admitted it was not.

    So Gowdy dismantled Comey’s contention that he couldn’t prove intent. As Gowdy said, a suspect just won’t admit they deliberately broke the law, but a prosecutor can still prove intent without that. And he demonstrated that Comey just doesn’t care. In fact, Comey didn’t rule out at one point in his testimony (not necessarily during Gowdy’s questioning) prosecuting someone else under similar circumstances. But no force on earth will get him to prosecute his boss’ designated successor.

    Comey thus made clear this is a one-time pass, and no one else should plan on such lenient treatment.

    Another one of Comey’s lies. When he held his press conference last week he said that no one at the State Department and I forget where else specifically who knew what he was going to say. BS. Obama wouldn’t have flown off to campaign with Clinton unless he already knew.

    This is beyond Banana Republic stuff. This is the Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria standard of justice. Beria told his boss if you want someone to be innocent there won’t be any evidence, and if you want someone to be guilty I’ll get the evidence.

      Topnife in reply to Arminius. | July 13, 2016 at 1:17 am

      I think your analysis of the intent issue is right on, and Comey’s arguments are stupid, really stupid. However, it’s clear that Comey is not stupid, and even if he’s corrupt, why then did he spend 14 minutes enumerating in detail every way in which Hillary had in fact broken the law?
      He could have delivered almost a one-liner, or alternatively could have referred the case to the (“reasonable”) prosecutors, which was in fact his proper role anyway — he’s not a prosecutor, so he usurped their role.
      Comey took the fall for DOJ and Lynch, but he spilled all the beans in the process.

        Arminius in reply to Topnife. | July 13, 2016 at 3:10 am

        It’s an “only Nixon could go to China” thing. Only a man with Comey’s reputation for integrity, who came out and at length listed all of Clinton’s misdeeds in such detail, could then lie and ludicrously say her actions don’t amount to a crime. All the derogatory details were supposed to convince us that this was a good faith decision rather than what it was. The fix was in.

        The con in con man is short for confidence. In order to rip you off he has to appear extremely trustworthy.

        In the normal course of things he would have given his recommendations to AG Lynch, and she would have told us her decision. And everyone would have said of course; she’s just doing her boss’ bidding like Holder. The DoJ under Obama has become extremely politicized. This took Lynch, and by extension Obama, apparently out of the loop. Apparently. That’s also why Comey began his press conference in which he originally announced he would not recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton by grandiosely announcing nobody knew what he was about to say. Right. It was all part of the theater. And the GOP was hoist on its own petard.

        The FBI has a reputation for being apolitical. Comey was highly praised by pols on both sides of the aisle.

        So Obama used that against the GOP. The GOP isn’t called the stupid party for nothing. They were like sheep to the slaughter. They announced months ago how willing they were to walk right into this trap. Look how easy the GOP made it for Obama (a little over one month before the announcement).

        http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-fbi-jason-chaffetz-223948

        “Chaffetz: GOP lawmakers would ‘probably’ accept no Clinton FBI indictment

        Should the FBI not recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton following its investigation of the setup of her private email server, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Monday said he and his Republican colleagues would “probably” accept the outcome.

        “Oh, probably, because we do believe in [FBI Director] James Comey,” the Utah Republican said during an appearance on Fox News’ “Outnumbered.” “I do think that in all of the government, he is a man of integrity and honesty.””

        They should never have pronounced so long and loudly that they trusted Comey and the FBI, they just didn’t trust the DoJ and particularly Lynch. By doing so they identified the one man who could lie to them and they’d have to choke it down.

        It was obviously beautifully choreographed. When GOP legislators started to even hint at questioning Comey’s integrity the Democrats came back and said that these same GOP legislators were praising Comey’s integrity right up until he announced his recommendation not to prosecute. The implication being the GOP that said for so long it trusted Comey now had to trust his farcical decision not to prosecute also or they were rank hypocrites. Really, it was a brilliant move, getting Comey, the one man in DC who supposedly had such integrity that both sides trust him, to prostitute himself.

        I mean, think; he was saying all sorts of things that are not in the purview of an FBI Director. It is not the FBI Director’s role to pronounce statutes unconstitutional. If anyone at the DOJ is supposed to express an opinion on that it should be the AG. But if it went to the AG evetyone’s reaction would be it’s politics as usual. The FBI Director isn’t a prosecutor. He’s an investigator. Yet he was talking about exercising prosecutorial discretion. That’s the AG’s job. Today Lynch was testifying and wouldn’t answer a single substantive question. She kept referring the legislators back to Comey’s statements. And, lo and behold, there’s Comey speaking her lines. Comey was her stand in.

          Topnife in reply to Arminius. | July 13, 2016 at 2:47 pm

          I have no disagreement with 90% of your analysis. DOJ has already squandered 95% of its reputation for probity (not to mention Lynch’s chat with Bill), such that any pronouncement by Lynch that no indictment was warranted would have been immediately labelled and discounted as a political coverup. She abdicated, by declaring that she would go with whatever the FBI recommended (but no doubt not-to-include an indictment).

          Hence, Comey knew that even with all the congressional hearings, and media hoorah, Hillary would not have been indicted, and moreover the details of the FBI’s findings regarding her specific activities, once inside the DOJ, would have been buried under a blanket of legal filings, injunctions and appeals, till well after the election, if not till the end of the world. Meanwhile the 90% of voters who get their info from Facebook would be informed that she was honest and true, had committed no crime, and had been horribly misunderstood.

          In the normal course of business, it was not Comey’s job to deliver the “final judgment”. He was supposed to put the entire result of the FBI investigation into an envelope and turn it over to DOJ for action. Had he done so, none of the damning FBI findings (not even an Executive Summary) would ever have seen the light of day (other than uncorroborated leaks from anonymous (FBI) sources(.

          However, Comey somehow grabbed the baton (which Lynch perceived as a hot potato) to deliver the decision, and this enabled him to expose all the facts that would otherwise be buried, under normal procedures. To do this, he had to offer Lynch something, which was total cover, as she so eloquently demonstrated a couple days later before Congress.

          Having grasped the baton, Comey had two courses of possible action:
          1. Briefly recount and summarize the “evidence”, then deny that 793f applies (an argument that would sell better without all the scurrilous details).
          2. Indict Hillary live, item-by-item with all the lurid details, a then follow with a specious argument for not actually indicting her under 793f, one that could be rapidly and easily destroyed and that would effectively demonstrate and confirm that the fix is in, even to the least discerning of voters.

          It was clear that morning that advance word of the plan was known in high places, but I suspect that the actual statement contained major surprises regarding the facts as laid out. And Comey pulled a fast one on both sides. Republicans will forever detest him, but I suspect that down the road, the DemoRats will realize that he screwed Hillary too! OMG, now that’s a noble sacrifice!

        Arminius in reply to Topnife. | July 13, 2016 at 3:24 am

        My computer is apparently infected with malware. As I’m typing along it will automatically highlight and delete text, and if it happens fast enough I don’t catch it. This was supposed to read:

        “All the derogatory details were supposed to strengthen our faith in his integrity. To convince us that this was a good faith decision rather than what it was.

Homey Comey KNOWS about half the country is stupid, or willfully so.

If we have an uncorrupted opposition party, Comey would be impeached, along with Lynch, and ultimately Obama. But we have the GOPe. Why we let these rats continue to be elected when we have the votes to retire them is as great a phenomenon as black and Jewish voters who support Clinton.

    Actually Comey, like Clinton, knows about half the country doesn’t care that Hillary is a brazen liar. Or they see her lying as a plus.

    As long as they get their free college, free tampons, and late term abortions. Which will be free, of course.

    If they were impeached the senate would acquit them, they would go on a victory tour flaunting their acquittal as a vindication, and the public would buy that line completely. They would go down in history as the innocent victims of cynical hyperpartisan persecution, just like the “innocent victims” of HUAC. What possible reason can there be to give them such a free gift?

A willful suspension of disbelief makes you a willing participant in the lies that follow.

Comey isn’t stupid and doesn’t give a penny for what the little people think. Serfs get no say in the goings on of their rulers.

He was simply putting us in our place as any overseer would.

It is no longer necessary to ask “are you in the tank for…? Just say “are you Comey for…?’

Comey’s behavior, after all the fanfare about how upright and honest he is, was only explicable in terms of corruption — on somebody’s part.
I realize that this hypothesis may be weak, but it may explain the inexplicable, so let me test it on you. Consider this approach:
A. Comey knew the fix was in, and that regardless of what she said, Lynch would never proceed with indictment after what Bill told her that he had on her.
B. If all the facts were wrapped up and sent to DOJ, they would disappear down a black hole, never to see the light.
C. Comey “took responsibility” for the decision that had already been made. He may even have offered to get out front.
D. Comey went thru all Hillary’s offenses, item by item, getting every one of them out in public and in detail, before announcing there would be no prosecution, which he knew was already foregone and out of his hands.
E. The “reasonable prosecutor” bit was his explanation to Lynch, to allow him to capture the role of public spokesman.
E. Hillary is now left with all the facts out there, and with being confirmed to be a liar by the FBI, and they will dog her all the way to November.
F. Whatever blackmail the Clintons had on Comey, it appears that they can no longer use it.

OK, Pile On!

All too obvious that the fix was in.Comey was told that Obama’s DOJ headed by Loreeya Lynch would never prosecute Crooked Hillary.That being understood he laid out her guilt but in the end towed the line and recommended no prosection,letting Lynch off the hook…especially after her shady meeting with BJ the week before at the Phoenix airport.The stench here is sickening and this enforces the idea that this lying,crooked slimeball would only perpetuate this corrupt administration.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend