Actually it will be. Politically speaking, it now goes in the same category as Benghazi: investigated, over.
Actually it will be. Politically speaking, it now goes in the same category as Benghazi: investigated, over.[/quote]
we will see, polls have had Hillary up between 4 and 6 points over the last month, lets see how she does over the month of July.
It certainly wonât go away either, Benghazi was too complicated for people to dig into the details. This one is easy.
She claimed to have no classified information, the FBI says that was untrue there was tons and some top secret. She claimed to have handed everything over, she lied about that too, the FBI said there were thousands not handed over. She said she used it for convenience from a single device, she lied about that using multiple devices and servers. She lied about everything.
She canât claim to be some experienced government hand, she just got labeled incompetent. She canât claim to have better judgement than Trump, her behavior in the Sate department was so lacking in judgement to characterize her as an unreasonable person, lacking good judgement.
Those 15 minutes from Comey are meat and potatoes for the Trump camp, the FBI just created the attack ad he wanted. You are an intelligent person MikeN so Iâm pretty sure you figured out what was going on right from the start, but you may be shocked just how many people actually believed her and are in shock right now.
I asked a corporate attorney friend if this means we can all destroy potential email evidence now when faced with a civil or criminal investigation and he just laughed.
Jason Chaffetz, Republican chair of House Committee on Oversoght and Govrnment Reform, June 6
[quote] âI do think that in all of government, he is a man of integrity and honesty,â he said of Comey during a June 6 appearance on Fox Newsâ âOutnumbered.â
âHis finger is on the pulse of this,â Chaffetz continued. âNothing happens without him, and I think he is going to be the definitive person to make a determination or a recommendation.â
Asked if he thought Republicans would accept an FBI recommendation not to indict Clinton, he replied, âOh, probably. Because we do believe in James Comey.â[/quote]
Jason Chaffetz, July 6
[quote] Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is hauling FBI director James Comey to Capitol Hill on Thursday to explain why he didnât recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for using a private email server as secretary of state.
âThe FBIâs recommendation is surprising and confusing,â Chaffetz, who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said Wednesday. âThe fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable.â
The Utah lawmaker argued that while the yearlong FBI probe may be over, heâs ready to lead a new investigation into that investigation. âCongress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBIâs investigation,â he said.
[/quote]
"He was a man of integrity and honesty, until it turned out the truth was something we didn't like...."[quote]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.[/quote] --FBI Director James Comey
Most likely for the same reason Richard Nixon wasnât prosecuted for obstruction of justice. You and I, on the other hand, are a different story:
[quote]To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.[/quote] â FBI Director Comey
Translation: just because Clinton and Nixon got away with it doesnât mean you, the little people, should get any wrong ideas in your heads.
I think Comey will come out just fine, the Republicans will seem petty. I get the rationale for not recommending an indictment, in fact I wouldnât be surprised if the Lynch/Bill meeting a few days earlier wasnât to reassure Billary that the FBI had nothing they could use to bring charges unless she acknowledges she knew the material was classified, i.e deny deny deny.
I heard some say she should have had charges brought due to gross negligence, but you will never get 12 people to all agree that standard was met, not in this political climate and the person is running for President.
From your article above, " Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable", unlike Petraeus which her case is so often compared to, Clinton wont admit any intent no matter how obvious it is and apart from people like Comey who can see what the information is, its classified, so she can just tell the public, she disagrees and some agencies over classify.
Plus Comey has no problem with HRH keeping her top secret security clearance despite years of gross negligence.
IF HRH would just make a campaign promise not to use a home computer to conduct presidential business when the heat is off I think the vast majority of little people would be willing to forget the whole thing at this point.
Comey looked disgusted, but Clinton beat the system. Itâs like that movie Lord Of War with Nicolas Cage, he knows every loop hole to break up gunships with their missiles to circumvent regulations, rename boats and do everything he can to beat the system. Everyone knows what he is doing but its like nailing jello to the wall.
Clinton wasnât the only one treating classified information like Facebook updates. Her aides were as well and, like her, theyâll get to keep their security clearances too. All part of the game. At least we commoners donât have to play dumb about whatâs really going on here:
As predicted this thing was never going to resonate or go anywhere. It obviously wasnât a secret what she was doing when she did it.
An observation: if youâre declaring final victory repeatedly on the same topic, it probably isnât really over.
So youâre going to let it go?
[quote]Itâs not the crime, itâs the coverup.[/quote] â Watergate
While a 99-percenter in Hillary Clintonâs position may not have been indicted for gross negligence in handling classified material he or she would almost certainly have been indicted for making false statements to investigators and charged with obstruction of justice for destroying email evidence, plus being stripped of his or her security clearance. Being a 1-percenter though the rules are different for Clinton, just as they were for Nixon, who was never charged with a crime either. As a 99-percenter I get that but I have my pride too. I just hate the fact that the 1-percenters and their minions think they can fool all the 99-percenters all the time with their hokum that weâre all equal before the law.
Closed captioned for true believers and the hard of hearing:
[quote]Martha Stewart Is Found Guilty of All Charges, March 7, 2004
[color=blue]A federal jury found Martha Stewart guilty of all four counts related to her obstruction of a government investigation into her sale of ImClone Systems Inc. stock in late 2001, giving the government a big win in its pursuit of white-collar crime.[/color]
The jury of eight women and four men took less than three days to find that Ms. Stewart, 62 years old, guilty of obstructing the investigation and making false statements.
[color=blue]Ms. Stewart faces about one to two years in prison, under federal sentencing guidelines, [/color]but the judge could order that she spend some of that time in a halfway house or in home detention.
Ms. Stewartâs former Merrill Lynch & Co. broker, Peter Bacanovic, who was her co-defendant, was found guilty of four of the five counts against him. He was found guilty of conspiracy, making false statements, perjury and obstruction of agency proceedings. He was found not guilty of the charge of making false documents. . .
Each one of the counts against Ms. Stewart carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.
âMaybe itâs a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market because of these kinds of transactions,â said juror Chappell Hartridge⌠. .
[color=blue]Ms. Stewartâs attorneys . . . pointed out that Ms. Stewart wasnât charged criminally with an underlying crime, such as criminal insider trading. Instead, she was charged with lying about the reasons for her sale.[/quote][/color]
Theyâre trying mightily to make this all go away. I picture Lady Macbeth telling her dog to go outdoors.
FBI Director takes a bullet:
[quote]During testimony before Congress on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey stated that the FBIâs interview with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not under oath or recorded, but it still would be a crime to lie to the FBI.
Comey stated that he did not personally interview Clinton, and did not talk to all of the âfive or sixâ who did interview Clinton.
He was then asked, âdid she testify or talk to them under oath?â Comey answered, âNo.â But added that âitâs still a crime to lie to us.â
When asked if there was a transcript of the interview, Comey stated that there wasnât one because the interview wasnât recorded, but there was an analysis of Clintonâs interview.[/quote]
This is what Republicans love to do: 
Martha Stewart was proven to have lied to the FBI, at least the jury believed so.
[quote]When questioned by the SEC and the FBI in the months following her trade, Stewart said she had no knowledge of Waksalâs trade and that she had sold on a standing agreement with her broker to sell if shares traded below $60. Bacanovic corroborated the story, but his assistant Faneuil eventually came forward and revealed the truth, furthering the case against Stewart. Later, Stewartâs own assistant, Annie Armstrong, testified that Stewart had tried to change a record of Bacanovicâs phone message to her about ImClone.
To the jury in Stewartâs trial, it seemed clear she had lied.[/quote] coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/ ⌠did-wrong/
Clinton said nothing in her emails was marked classified, Comey testified there was, a clear case of lying? Actually not.
You still need a clear case of intent in lying, in this case Comey was referring to 3 emails with 3 small marking at the end of paragraphs indicating classified material, he was asked by one of the committee members if someone who receives thousands of emails could have reasonably missed the markings, and he said yes.
And with that answer up in smoke goes any proof of intent, you canât charge her with passing on classified information to unclassified persons, because she claims to believe there was no classified information (or youâre back to the charge involving gross negligence, which it seems is a bar too low for them in this case). You canât get her on deleting information because she had her lawyers delete the personal information. Itâs over, all thatâs left is the political theater.
[quote=âMickâ]Martha Stewart was proven to have lied to the FBI, at least the jury believed so.
[quote]When questioned by the SEC and the FBI in the months following her trade, Stewart said she had no knowledge of Waksalâs trade and that she had sold on a standing agreement with her broker to sell if shares traded below $60. Bacanovic corroborated the story, but his assistant Faneuil eventually came forward and revealed the truth, furthering the case against Stewart. Later, Stewartâs own assistant, Annie Armstrong, testified that Stewart had tried to change a record of Bacanovicâs phone message to her about ImClone.
To the jury in Stewartâs trial, it seemed clear she had lied.[/quote] coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/ ⌠did-wrong/
Clinton said nothing in her emails was marked classified, Comey testified there was, a clear case of lying? Actually not.
You still need a clear case of intent in lying, in this case Comey was referring to 3 emails with 3 small marking at the end of paragraphs indicating classified material, he was asked by one of the committee members if someone who receives thousands of emails could have reasonably missed the markings, and he said yes.
And with that answer up in smoke goes any proof of intent, you canât charge her with passing on classified information to unclassified persons, because she claims to believe there was no classified information (or youâre back to the charge involving gross negligence, which it seems is a bar too low for them in this case). You canât get her on deleting information because she had her lawyers delete the personal information. Itâs over, all thatâs left is the political theater.[/quote]
Unlike with Hillary Clinton the FBI had the foresight to record its interview with Martha Stewart so there was proof of perjury to present to a jury. Speaking of which:
[quote]Early on during Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetzâs opening questions, he asked Director Comey if the FBI investigated whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath.
âNot to the FBI, not in a case we are working,â Director Comey replied.
Congressman Chaffetz then clarified that he was referring to her testimony before the Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015.
âDid you review the documents where Congressman Jim Jordan asked her specifically, and she said âThere was nothing marked classified on my emails either sent or received,ââ Congressman Chaffetz asked.
âI donât remember reviewing that particular testimony,â Director Comey replied. âI am aware of that being said, though.â
âDid the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?â Congressman Chaffetz asked.
âNot to my knowledge â I donât think there has been a referral from Congress,â Director Comey replied.
âDo you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?â Congressman Chaffetz asked.
âSure do,â Comey replied.[/quote]