Image 01 Image 03



Complete whitewash.

FBI Director James Comey gave an on-camera press statement today from FBI headquarters, and is taking questions from reporters off camera.

Despite finding serious problems and carelessness in handling classified information, rejecting claims that such information must be “marked” classified, and likelihood of foreign hacking, Comey says no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case because no bad intent.

Somewhere, David Petreaus and dozens of others prosecuted in the past are crying.

Legal Insurrection readers called it:

(Full Text of Comey Statement at bottom of post)

Full video:

Tweets as it happened

Some reactions:

My reaction



Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Washington, D.C.
July 05, 2016

FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

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

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail 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, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion 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. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail 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 e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails 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 e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


#IsTheFixIn for #CrookedHillary?

Yes, the #FixIsIn.

Anyone else would have been fired, lost all security clearances (at a minimum) and faced some form of criminal prosecution for this (even if only on a misdemeanor level).

Comey just ensured the election of Hillary.

    pesanteur in reply to Joe-dallas. | July 5, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Completely inverted. He just ensured the election of Trump. Now the democrats are stuck with her toxic carcass and Trump’s argument that the “system is rigged” and his call for reform take on even greater clarion urgency.

      buckeyeminuteman in reply to pesanteur. | July 5, 2016 at 1:21 pm

      That’s what people thought Roberts did with Obamacare in 2012; keep it alive and the voters will do the right thing. And we all know how well that worked out.

    Olinser in reply to Joe-dallas. | July 5, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    I literally cannot comprehend how ANYBODY that even vaguely considers themselves conservative can even think of allowing Hillary to be elected after this.

    She’s a fucking corrupt piece of shit, and if allowed to be elected we’re going to endure 8 years of this crap and decades more cleaning up the mess.

    Democrats in government are fucking corrupt. At least Trump will be held accountable by Republicans.

      “At least Trump will be held accountable by Republicans.”

      If I believed that, I might even consider voting for the filth (Trump, I mean. Not the other filth). But having faith in the Republican party is only slightly less delusional than having faith in the integrity of the director of the FBI.

“Comey: FBI’s recommendation is NOT TO PROSECUTE, despite “clear evidence” of mishandling.”

Who called Gen. Petraeus “General Betray Us ” for much less dangerous behavior?

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | July 5, 2016 at 11:46 am

    That was, and it wasn’t for anything like this. You are confusing two completely unrelated incidents, years apart.

What a crock of s hit.

VaGentleman | July 5, 2016 at 11:23 am

“Despite the fact that we know she broke the law, and we can prove it, she didn’t mean to, so no foul committed. End of story.”

Now we just need to vote #NeverTrump to complete the farce.

DieJustAsHappy | July 5, 2016 at 11:23 am

As I thought there would be an indictment, I’ll be the first to admit I called it wrong. For those of you who were correct, I’m sorry that the funds aren’t available to buy you a beer. or maybe more might be more like it.

The fiction of the “rule of law” is dead and buried.
We knew all along that we were being played with the supposed FBI investigation.
There actually has been no doubt about the rule of law being dead since “Justice” Roberts’ capitulation on obamacare.

So Hillary can set up private server(s) and send classified information on them but as long as she didn’t do it intentionally, she’s okay? And the whole private server thing doesn’t show intent?

So much for the rule of law.

    Lewfarge in reply to Sanddog. | July 5, 2016 at 11:56 am

    I have thought so for quite awhile, but today it became official- the constitution and the rule of law are dead.
    ” not intentional ” – the private server was intentional !

    amwick in reply to Sanddog. | July 5, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    For one second I felt a teensy bit sorry for the many decent people who are part of the legal system.

Cool, so she’s not a criminal, just a complete incompetent. She’ll make a great president.

July 5, 2016: The day the Rule of Law officially died in this country. I am going to don all black for the remainder of the week.

great unknown | July 5, 2016 at 11:28 am

And this is why I am torn between mockery and depression when otherwise intelligent people like those polled by this website said that they would vote for Hillary [or not vote, which is the same thing], rather than vote for Trump.

Because, among other reasons, Trump does not believe in the “rule of law.”

We are now officially a banana republic. I weep for our children.

So Soviet. Just keep your head low and praise the established orthodoxy in public spaces. And in America, abort and cannibalize a virginal human life for good measure and profit.

Director Comey just scored front row seating at the White House’s next Beyonce concert!

Bellerophon | July 5, 2016 at 11:38 am

My first thought at the end of all of that was, WTF?!!! I just… I can’t even….

Seriously, I was a Never Trump. I mean, I was NEVER Trump, period.

But now….

So much for Director Comey’s purported independence and all the other superlatives used to describe him.

No bad intent? The purpose of the entire scheme was to evade FOIA. Besides, since when does intent matter? What a load of horse shit.

Hitlary has been found to have mishandled Top Secret and Secret and
confidential information. She will lose her clearance and be unable to regain it. Question: How will she be CIC of US? She cannot see or be present during discussions of classified information.

    Milhouse in reply to Ronbert. | July 5, 2016 at 11:50 am

    The president doesn’t need clearance. The entire classification system is on the president’s authority; he decides what sort of document should be classified, and at what level, and can unclassify anything he likes. That’s why it’s impossible for the president to leak; if the president does it or authorizes someone else to do it, it isn’t a leak. So if she’s president this won’t be a problem.

Not surprised, but definitely disappointed in the banana republic this country continues to become.

Richard Aubrey | July 5, 2016 at 11:49 am

Reprising various of my observations:
How many “career” folks at Justice were seeing kiddy pr0n popping up on their computers?

First Law of Clintons: If the Clintons did it, there’s nothing wrong with it and…delighted giggle…they got away with this one, too.

Unleash the IRS, bring Lois Lerner back from retirement.

Not sure when I figured the FBI wasn’t all that. Ted Stevens’ case was, afaik, the first I recall. Waco and Ruby Ridge weren’t so hot,either.

Craig Livingstone’s three hundred FBI files were a good start.

I feel sick.

How do they address the means by which the classified information made the jump from the classified government system to her home brew server? It is my understanding that somebody had to strip the headers and manually type the content into the unsecured system. To me, that was always the key point that proved intent.

Common Sense | July 5, 2016 at 11:53 am

Billy’s chat about the “Grand-kids” with Lynch on the plane in Phoenix worked wonders!

The rule of law for the United States died today!

If you rule you decide the law!

Obama and Clinton already have a campaign trip planned for NC. That tells me they knew long ago the outcome of this farce. It also tells me the AG knew what the FBI’s recommendation was going to be and is why she was not hesitant to commit to following their advice. Corruption from top to bottom.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Is it really the call of the investigators to decide whether a ‘reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case?’ Isn’t that where the DOJ comes into play?

This really stinks. But this is what we’re stuck with. I weep for my country.

What a fucking joke the ‘justice’ department has become.

Unfortunately I called this months ago. When the word leaked that the investigation was over 3 months ago and they were preparing to interview Hillary, and then suddenly clammed up and stopped announcing anything, it was pathetically obvious that Comey was just waiting until Hillary was safely the nominee before announcing this because the DNC didn’t want to risk a no-indictment announcement putting her behind Bernie.

Make no mistake. They knew they were going to ignore the criminal charges months ago. The only reason they waited this long was it took her so long to actually put away Bernie.

Our government is a fucking corrupt cesspool, Democrats don’t care as long as their gravy train keeps going, and Republicans are too chickenshit to ever do anything about it.

    Barry in reply to Olinser. | July 5, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    “…and Republicans are too chickenshit to ever do anything about it.”

    One correction, the R’s are on the gravy train as well. They are, just a subset of the uniparty, dedicated to enriching their selves while destroying the country called America.

As days go, this is a very sad one.

For the first time in my adult life I am ashamed of my country!

Greg Toombs | July 5, 2016 at 12:07 pm

Welp, she was not exonerated at trial, so I suppose under a Trump Administration with an AG appointed by him, it’s possible she could be charged in the future. It may be the best reason I have for voting for Trump.

Comey bears now and forever the stench of corruption.

Greg Toombs | July 5, 2016 at 12:10 pm

Comey’s statement and conclusion are in 180 degree conflict. I suppose this could be viewed as an intelligence test for one’s friends and acquaintances.

Today, FBI director Comey betrayed his country. So, why do we have an FBI again?

    inspectorudy in reply to irv. | July 5, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Many people forget that the FBI under Hoover was about as corrupt an organization as there could be. And starting with the clinton’s it took a nose dive into the evil world of control by the clinton’s. Ruby Ridge, Waco, the FBI lab scandal, hillary in possession of many FBI files of prominent Republicans just before an upcoming national election, the crash/shoot down of TWA 800 and now this fiasco. Respect for the FBI? I would treat them as a hostile force until proven otherwise. I hope Comey enjoys his stint on the SCOTUS and lynch keeping her job at the DoJ. America should hang her head in shame!

    Anonamom in reply to irv. | July 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    To keep the little people in line.

Richard Aubrey | July 5, 2016 at 12:12 pm

It’s not clear whether BJ Clinton was ever held back from rape by fear of prosecution. It must suck for him to have finally reached perfect immunity when he’s too old to enjoy it.
And what do you do when the Secret Service come for your daughter or granddaughter?

Gosh, no one could have seen THAT coming.


He should be ashamed!

“There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.”

Huh?!You mean, Comey, like “sorry officer, I didn’t know there was a law against that? Or, I wasn’t intending to cause a problem, officer.”

Hillary’s intent included hiding her willful act of entwining information, both personal and secure state dept. info, so as to obfuscate what she was doing and to block the information from public scrutiny and accountablity. She continued in that decsion knowingly. To set up a personal server was acting with intent.

So her decision to continue with the current setup means that all the foreseen consequences (by “hostile actors”) are to some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person’s intent.

There is only one “hostile actor” who should be prosecuted to the full exent of the law: Hillary.

I like the part where Comey says that another person who did this would be subject to administrative or security sanctions. Such as, I presume, the removal of their government security clearance.

But obviously we can’t have a president who isn’t cleared to review top secret documents, so even that slap on the wrist is not going to happen to Hillary.

It’s good to be queen, eh Hillary?

Comey, you’re a disgrace.

Imagine a president that could not even obtain a security clearance.

There was a time when the FBI could actually do something about master criminals … like Scooter Libby.

Humphrey's Executor | July 5, 2016 at 12:45 pm

It’s easy to see what happened here: Lynch put the decision in Comey’s lap, and Comey likes life, so no prosecution.

You shanked the punt there, Comey. This leaves an incredible stain on the FBI as a law enforcement institution. I wonder how long it will take for the FBI underlings involved in the investigation(s) to start a steady stream of leaked information in order to undercut their pathetic director’s political decision.

Here is the spin…..

“We laid out the facts as we found them and now we will leave it up to the largest jury in the world, the American people. Voters will be able to decide for themselves if Ms. Clinton is trustworthy or not.”

“This is the highest form of justice and we place our faith in the wisdom of the American voter.”

John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, John Boehnor, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the republican house majority since 2010, the Senate majority since 2014, Trey Gowdy, James Commey, etc.
All republicans.
Is there any question they’re just screwing with us now.

Is the “security and administrative sanctions” line a technical way of saying that she could have been suspended or fired and would have certainly had her clearance revoked if she was still on the job?

I have not read through all of the responses, but on Feb 3 1959, the music died. Today the rule of law died.

LukeHandCool | July 5, 2016 at 1:13 pm


Leavers win again.

Our government is corrupt to the core. I know that we have republicans and democrats in Washington. But it looks like we don’t have any Americans.

Just when you think the last circle of hell has befallen the Republic by President44 and his cabal, on July5th, no less , another circle has emerged with the FBI and Mrs. Clinton as foul agents.

For those Never Trump people: you will be extinct politically on state and National levels with one term of a Mrs. Clinton as President.The levels of immigration will make you moot.

buckeyeminuteman | July 5, 2016 at 1:17 pm

So a member of the Obama Admin couldn’t find any evidence of wrongdoing by another member of the Obama Admin the week after another member of the Obama Admin secretly met with the husband of the first member of the Obama Admin? Is anybody actually surprised?

Comey: We have found evidence of blatant attempts by the former Sec of State Clinton to skirt FOIA requests by setting up an unauthorized computer system in her personal residence. We have also learned that foreign governments may have attempted to hack into this grossly unsecured system. In addition, we have documented the ongoing and continuous mishandling of classified federal documents, at least 8 of them clearly marked “Top Secret.” We believe the evidence we have gathered is sufficient to charge most any American citizen with multiple felonies. However, as this particular American citizen is Hillary Rodham Clinton, we are recommending the DOJ not prosecute. Not even a misdemeanor.
(steps from behind podium and grabs crotch)
Suck it.

LukeHandCool | July 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm

Banana Republic

*** Special One-Day Sale ***

100% off any Comey accessory with the purchase of any pantsuit on clearance.

I’m confused: Is it normal for the FBI to fail to recommend charges based solely on what some theoretical prosecutor would or wouldn’t do? I could see taking case law into account, but I would think they’d want to leave prosecutorial decisions up to prosecutors instead of proactively making it for them. Even without the context, this seem highly irregular.

I’m not surprised. Comey made a political decision not a legal one. When has that ever happened before? The powers that be have decided to place HRC at the helm of our country and will do everything in their power to effect that outcome. Don’t let them win. Vote Trump

From the start, I wondered if the same rules applied to her as to everyone else.

Our answer: Hill No.

Natural law next?

Bill better watch out , its official ,Hillary can get away with murder

Watch In Amazement As Political Opportunism Turns “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” Into “A Boy Named Sue!”

LukeHandCool | July 5, 2016 at 2:10 pm

What Hillary said: “Now little girls know they can grow up to be the President of the United States.”

What Hillary meant: “Now little girls know they can grow up to be above the law.”

Major question: It was specifically stated that emails were found that WERE NOT turned over, that were deleted, but RECOVERED by FBI – IS that not A SPECIFIC VIOLATION of the laws for handling and retention of government records, AND was INTENTIONAL ??????

Is this where Lynch comes out and says:
” With all due respect to the FBI, we have decided to exercise our discretion and will proceed to indict Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton for multiple violations of Federal Law ”

Comey seems to have discovered a unicorn: a prosecutor who doesn’t love a case in which the defendant has hung themselves by engaging in evidence destruction and coverup. Even a partisan NY or DC jury might be so disgusted they vote guilty, since even if there’s not a lot of direct evidence the coverup shows a guilty mind and juries usually love to convict on that.

If I recall correctly the federal classified materials statutes are strict liability. What does intent have to do with it? Even if you ignore that, evidence destruction and lying to investigators are themselves federal crimes.

    Comey re-writes federal law to require “specific intent” where the standard is strict liability.

    It’s like getting a speeding ticket. It does not matter if you intended to exceed the posted speed or not. If you exceeded the posted speed, you are guilty of the offense.

You can find plenty of patties in the pasture that sum up in two words what happened here.

John Sullivan | July 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm

If Hillary was still SecState, is there any doubt that she would be forced to resign after issuance of such FBI findings? Yet, she is still likely to be elected President. Only in America.

LukeHandCool | July 5, 2016 at 2:57 pm

Today’s lesson for police officers:

If you shoot an unarmed suspect for no apparently good reason …

… make sure you do it in an “extremely careless” way.

You’ll be fine.

holdingmynose | July 5, 2016 at 3:02 pm

Expect to see a “post exoneration” poll bounce for Shrillary as the Clintonistas and their useful idiots in the media celebrate this decision by Comey.

yourmamatoo | July 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm

Crooked Comey has proven justice is truly blind for Clintons!
What an utter disgrace!

    Sanddog in reply to yourmamatoo. | July 5, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    Look at it this way…. Comey knew Lynch was NEVER going to prosecute Hillary. Had he just handed the case over without the press conference, his findings would have disappeared down a black hole and he would not have been able to get out any of his findings.

      randian in reply to Sanddog. | July 5, 2016 at 11:45 pm

      Had that really been Comey’s plan he could have recommended prosecution and hung Lynch out to dry. Lynch is not his boss and can’t fire him, and if Obama fires him in retaliation that’s more kindling to the flame.

        Sanddog in reply to randian. | July 6, 2016 at 12:38 am

        If he was going to recommend prosecution, he would have handed the case over to Lynch, knowing she’d make it disappear and he’d never get any of the information found out to the public.

The gift here is we have just been handed a clean slate.
We can revisit the issue at will.

I’m waiting for Sidney Blumenthal to weigh in on what he thinks . . .

I’m sure the sailors that were fired or disciplined after being held captive by Iran are real happy to know carelessness is cool with the gov. Hopefully they appeal their firing’s and disciplines.

Justice is blind. Truly blind – it can’t see HRC.

I am so disgusted it makes me physically ill. Why, oh why, haven’t the peasants gathered up their ‘pitchforks’ and torches and gone after these people? WHY!?? This is a declaration of war from the FBI to the American people. Like they’re daring us to protest.

Lets dare, shall we!?

I have not given up hope. This gem is sticking in my head “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

Based on their investigation HRC would not pass the background check for a Security Clearance IMHO. Screw the indictment, revocation of her Security Clearance should be the first order of business. Following removal of her Clearance the National discussion on the wisdom of electing this corrupt security risk is a conversation that needs to be had.

inspectorudy | July 5, 2016 at 6:42 pm

I wonder what Comey and his boys thought of the e-mail where hillary actually tells an underling to cut the heading off of a classified document and send it to her. Is that not intent? I have been sick to my stomach since I heard this terrible revelation. Like I said yesterday on this site, she is the best opponent for Trump to go against. If he can’t beat her then he doesn’t deserve to be our president.

Will we ever find out what Bryan Pagliano told the FBI under immunity?

Rule of law is effectively dead in the United States.

Buy more ammo. Lots and lots of ammo.


This case has been pulled out from under the Obama administration, perfectly preserved and given to the next administration.
A good gamble, with a much better chance of justice.

Legal question: Although the FBI has chosen not to recommend criminal charges, since his report contradicts her sworn testimony before Congress, is she subject to being charged for perjury or contempt of Congress? Also, do the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which a US President can be impeached have to have occurred during the term of office? Can they be brought for offenses preceding election?

With tough, fair-minded, and non-partisan people like Comey in office, who needs political hacks?

Powell used an AOL account.

I’m sure Mr Jacobson has dealt with a situation where the heavy hitters tell the others what the outcome is going to be. I have as a detective. You have two choices. Quit, and make a small splash that lasts a short time. Stay and fight for any ground you can save, and mark a time when you can do something that will have the greatest impact.

I’m not defending Comey. He’s a big boy. But this “investigation” has been a fraud from the beginning. We know the DOJ attorneys gave her team heads up on every interview and limited some questions. Why? Because HRC has a talent to intertwine herself into others, thus making cutting her out dangerous- like a cancerous growth on the brain stem.

For example, don’t you think of those 52 highly classified email chains Obama isn’t in them at least once? So when her defense team puts him at the top of the deposition list and asks “Mr. President, you know the law, you should have known those documents you sent and received from clintonmail . com were insecure, right? Why aren’t you in jail?”

See my point?

Here, I think we have Comey not lying to us when he said nobody knows what he is going to say. That was cover for his own FBI agents. There is no way what he said was what the Clitnon/Lynch/Obama cartel thought he would! Not as Obama is flying HRC on AF1.

Think about that. He outlined her crime, then said “no reasonable prosecutor” would take THIS case. What he is saying is no Obama DOJ prosecutor is going to take on finding HRC and her staff guilty of felonies. So he just did it for them. Which is very unusual and I’ll bet making steam roll out of HRC’s ears!

His whole statement is a reminder of Jeremiah Denton in Vietnam blinking in Morse Code “torture” over and over while acting like he loves having the NVA film him for propaganda.

Now Joe Scarbough says he lacks courage. Lacking courage would be to just refer the case to DOJ, let them bury it and the details until after November.

Instead Comey fell on his sword for his FBI, trying to protect the agents who did the work and discovered HRC and her gang are felons.

Both sides now think he’s a hack, his reputation is ruined, as he knew it would be when he stepped out onto that stage. I could see the pain in his eyes.

The Clintons are a black vortex of evil that suck in and destroy everyone around them. You’d think the dems would have run them off a long time ago, but they are an amoral and greedy bunch for sure.

At least the public now knows she’s a liar and a felon and above the law. IF they vote for her, that’s their fault- not Comey’s.