Development on Clinton Email Probe?

[Starbuck1975]

The part you're trying desperately to avoid is the unanimity of judgement among the investigators & prosecutors. It's like losing in the SCOTUS 9-0.

Well, unless you're ready to impugn the integrity of all of them. Are you ready to go there?

FOIA? That's between the well financed legal assholes like the RNC & the State Dept. Maybe State should just drop everything to comply, huh?

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/282434-state-dept-would-need-75-years-to-compile-clinton-emails

A group of career FBI people are not held to the same legal standards or expectations as the Supreme Court. No one gets to write a dissenting opinion, nor is there transparency around their deliberations. The SCOTUS have the luxury of interpreting the law as they see fit, as is their function. I would liken the prosecution team more to a group of career military officers. I am not impugning their integrity, but I wouldn't question their decision to unanimously follow the wisdom and guidance of the general, in this case Comey. I wouldn't expect the profession of arms to dirty itself in a political knife fight. Perhaps Comey's reprimand signals a certain level of dissent or recognition that while it is blatantly obvious Clinton violated the intent of the law, there is inadequate evidence to prove said intent.

 

[compuwiz1]

LOL, 100K signatures in 24 hours: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but even I understand how many of these dumb petitions are filed, by disgruntled citizens. They don't do anything. Show me where one of these petitions has ever done anything. To me, they seem nothing more than a venting outlet, and a road to nowhere else.

 

[0roo0roo]

Did you miss the date when it was marked "Classified?"
1/29/2016
It wasn't classified at the time.

It's more fun this way

Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut
ReasonTV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

 

[Artdeco]

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but even I understand how many of these dumb petitions are filed, by disgruntled citizens. They don't do anything. Show me where one of these petitions has ever done anything. To me, they seem nothing more than a venting outlet, and a road to nowhere else.

I know, just a PR stunt, but interesting how quickly it hit 100,000 signatures, haven't seen any completed so quickly.

 

[compuwiz1]

I know, just a PR stunt, but interesting how quickly it hit 100,000 signatures, haven't seen any completed so quickly.

Yep. If it gets to several million, it might get someone's attention.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Excellent article on Slate that sums things up nicely:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ndal_shows_the_espionage_act_is_outdated.html

In summary, the Espionage Act is too broad and outdated, Clinton subjectively exceeded the gross negligence provision, but since there is no precedence of conviction under that provision alone, no reasonable prosecutor would indict in such ambiguous waters. It's a reasonable summary of the outcome, although I still believe the entire series of events warrants either judicial review to clarify the existing scope or legislative revision to change it.

 

[sportage]

See the announcement by Paul Ryan after the FBI released NO CHARGES?

Ryan statement: "while I respect the FBI, this decision is ridiculous."

For those that need translation for what Ryan meant, Ryan actually meant:
WHILE I RESPECT THE FBI, THEY DROPPED THE BALL.
SO....... NOW MY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WILL CONDUCT OUR OWN INVESTIGATION.
WE WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD CONCERNING CHARGES OR NO CHARGES.
NATURALLY, WE WILL FIND CHARGES.

And THAt is how it goes.
They never see things but through their twisted corrupt republican vision. Or envisions.
Nuff said?

The investigating committees to be formed. (Paul Ryan)

I won't say I told you so, but I told you so.
And...
If Hillary is elected president, this investigation will go on and on and on for her entire first 4 year term.
Investigating this, plus a second republican committee investigating the Bill Clinton / US AG airport meeting, AND NATURALLY more never ending Benghazi.
That adds up to three committees for the entire first 4 years of Hillary Clinton.

And from these three investigating committees, should one single hint of questionable conduct arise, even more committees will then be established to investigate that questionable conduct.
Whitewater will seem like a walk in the park compared to what republicans have in store "should" Hillary be elected.

And as with Obama, who they consistently refused to cooperate with from day one until the very end, with republicans basically saying Obama was not worthy to be president, they will also apply this same mindset to Hillary Clinton.
A woman unworthy to be president because not that she is Hillary, but because she happens to be and dare to be, "an uppity woman".
In other words, black men and uppity women do not pass the muster.
They will be tormented day after day until they leave office.

Did I tell you so? Yes, I told you so.

 

[Jhhnn]

A group of career FBI people are not held to the same legal standards or expectations as the Supreme Court. No one gets to write a dissenting opinion, nor is there transparency around their deliberations. The SCOTUS have the luxury of interpreting the law as they see fit, as is their function. I would liken the prosecution team more to a group of career military officers. I am not impugning their integrity, but I wouldn't question their decision to unanimously follow the wisdom and guidance of the general, in this case Comey. I wouldn't expect the profession of arms to dirty itself in a political knife fight. Perhaps Comey's reprimand signals a certain level of dissent or recognition that while it is blatantly obvious Clinton violated the intent of the law, there is inadequate evidence to prove said intent.

Hurfity burf. What reprimand?

 

[FerrelGeek]

It looks like you've got some serious issues kid. Good luck with that!

Oh, I've got my foibles and flaws just like anyone else. But serious issues? Well, I take issue with people who are so filled with hate for people with whom they disagree that it drives them to utter irrationality. You'd vote for a serial pedophile if you thought it'd bother a 'rightie'. I'm at least honest in saying that both candidates suck and that it's deplorable that we've reached this point in our republic that we've come down to the two utterly reprehensible people seeking the presidency: a flaming dbag buffoon and a flaming corrupt incompetent.

 

[Jhhnn]

Excellent article on Slate that sums things up nicely:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ndal_shows_the_espionage_act_is_outdated.html

In summary, the Espionage Act is too broad and outdated, Clinton subjectively exceeded the gross negligence provision, but since there is no precedence of conviction under that provision alone, no reasonable prosecutor would indict in such ambiguous waters. It's a reasonable summary of the outcome, although I still believe the entire series of events warrants either judicial review to clarify the existing scope or legislative revision to change it.

I doubt that there is any mechanism to provide judicial review when the DoJ declines prosecution, but nice try anyway. When you lose in the proper venue you don't get a do-over in another.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I doubt that there is any mechanism to provide judicial review when the DoJ declines prosecution, but nice try anyway. When you lose in the proper venue you don't get a do-over in another.

Relative to Clinton, if new evidence were to emerge that compels indictment, there absolutely would be a mechanism, although that is a highly unlikely scenario.

The more likely scenario is the next time some poor soldier or contractor does something stupid and is not given the benefit of the doubt, they will challenge it in court given the precedent now set, which will force a judicial review.

 

[Jhhnn]

Relative to Clinton, if new evidence were to emerge that compels indictment, there absolutely would be a mechanism, although that is a highly unlikely scenario.

The more likely scenario is the next time some poor soldier or contractor does something stupid and is not given the benefit of the doubt, they will challenge it in court given the precedent now set, which will force a judicial review.

New evidence would necessarily be taken up by the DoJ. The Judiciary acts as arbiter between the govt & the accused, not in any prosecutorial role. They can't be arbiter & prosecutor at the same time. Nor can the judiciary change the law other than to strike it down when unconstitutional.

How can anybody use a non-precedent as precedent? This decision by the FBI & DoJ has no standing for the judiciary because the matter was never put before them.

And, uhh, who has the power to reprimand Comey, anyway?

 

[Starbuck1975]

New evidence would necessarily be taken up by the DoJ. The Judiciary acts as arbiter between the govt & the accused, not in any prosecutorial role. They can't be arbiter & prosecutor at the same time. Nor can the judiciary change the law other than to strike it down when unconstitutional.

Yes. If new evidence comes to light that more obviously exceeds the gross negligence statute, a prosecutor would have to bring charges, which would enable a judicial review of the statute. We are saying the same thing.

How can anybody use a non-precedent as precedent? This decision by the FBI & DoJ has no standing for the judiciary because the matter was never put before them.

Comey set very clear criteria for what constitutes precedence in prosecuting the Espionage Act. Should I ever face charges for gross negligence alone, rather than accept a plea bargain, I would absolutely fight the prosecution under the precedence Comey has now set. It is not judicial precedence but it is a procedural one.

And, uhh, who has the power to reprimand Comey, anyway?

I was referring to Comey's reprimand of Clinton. I am not recommending indictment. No reasonable prosecutor would...BUT...you did all these horrible things.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes. If new evidence comes to light that more obviously exceeds the gross negligence statute, a prosecutor would have to bring charges, which would enable a judicial review of the statute. We are saying the same thing.

Now we are. You previously insinuated that some way should be found to seek charges outside the purview of the DoJ. More obviously? Leave off the "More" to make an accurate non-propaganda statement.

Comey set very clear criteria for what constitutes precedence in prosecuting the Espionage Act. Should I ever face charges for gross negligence alone, rather than accept a plea bargain, I would absolutely fight the prosecution under the precedence Comey has now set. It is not judicial precedence but it is a procedural one.

And that's a bad thing? He didn't set precedence so much as he cited it.

I was referring to Comey's reprimand of Clinton. I am not recommending indictment. No reasonable prosecutor would...BUT...you did all these horrible things.

Horrible? Really? Get some perspective. It's just another overblown Repub scandal like all those preceding it.

 

[Knowing]

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but even I understand how many of these dumb petitions are filed, by disgruntled citizens. They don't do anything. Show me where one of these petitions has ever done anything. To me, they seem nothing more than a venting outlet, and a road to nowhere else.

IMHO, the petitions were implemented so that populist topics could be "forced" to be acted on by the White House. When they started to be used for things that weren't politically fortuitous there was no longer any reason to lend them any legitimacy.

 

[dainthomas]

Horrible? Really? Get some perspective. It's just another overblown Repub scandal like all those preceding it.

No kidding. I have so many friends going into full freak out mode online. Hyperbole like "The rule of law has ended!!!" "The death of the Republic!!1!!!" Etc etc.

Holy hell, get a grip you people.

 

[cyclohexane]

It's hurting the republicans. If you overreact on every little thing, then when there comes an actual real scandal - people will be so desensitized they will get ignored.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's hurting the republicans. If you overreact on every little thing, then when there comes an actual real scandal - people will be so desensitized they will get ignored.

It's astonishing the rage people feel over this. Earlier in the thread a poster suggested it was much worse than Watergate. You'd think the server was set up to funnel state secrets to Beijing or something.

 

[Triloby]

The GOP who cried wolf, eh?

How many years (if not decades) have they spent trying to hound Hillary on all the things she has done in politics (Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, etc.)?

We're talking about a woman who was able to withstand an 11-hour grilling by the Benghazi Committee. If she's able to endure that, she's more than able to endure whatever kind of stress or shenanigans that will happen in the future.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton (not even in the slightest) and I have no desire to vote for her, but the GOP truly dropped the ball here in this case. All those years of attacks and shouting against Hillary, and all it amounted to in the end was jack shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's hurting the republicans. If you overreact on every little thing, then when there comes an actual real scandal - people will be so desensitized they will get ignored.

Repubs have successfully created the Birther/Benghazi bubble world & seem to think it's bigger than it really is. OTOH, pandering to it serves the purposes of Reps in heavily gerrymandered districts so they'll ride that horse into the ground. They can't not ride it, either, because they'll be face primary challenges by somebody who will.

It's what happens when they've pushed poisonous attitudes & ideology for decades.

 

[Jhhnn]

The GOP who cried wolf, eh?

How many years (if not decades) have they spent trying to hound Hillary on all the things she has done in politics (Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, etc.)?

We're talking about a woman who was able to withstand an 11-hour grilling by the Benghazi Committee. If she's able to endure that, she's more than able to endure whatever kind of stress or shenanigans that will happen in the future.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton (not even in the slightest) and I have no desire to vote for her, but the GOP truly dropped the ball here in this case. All those years of attacks and shouting against Hillary, and all it amounted to in the end was jack shit.

It has the effect they want. Lots of Hillary haters don't even know why they hate her. It's just not as pervasive as they'd like.

Go to the Clinton website. Substitute (your favorite politician) for Hillary. Look over the policy positions. Most people would really like (your favorite politician). Well, so long as it's not Hillary.

 

[senseamp]

It's hurting the republicans. If you overreact on every little thing, then when there comes an actual real scandal - people will be so desensitized they will get ignored.

I wonder if Clinton met with Lynch on purpose, just to throw some red meat to rabid Republicans to distract from the Comey announcement.

 

[buckshot24]

It's astonishing the rage people feel over this. Earlier in the thread a poster suggested it was much worse than Watergate. You'd think the server was set up to funnel state secrets to Beijing or something.

That is what most likely happened because of gross negligence.

 

[Artdeco]

I wonder if Clinton met with Lynch on purpose, just to throw some red meat to rabid Republicans to distract from the Comey announcement.

Unless his goal was to throw Lynch under the bus, it made no sense.

 

[fskimospy]

The GOP who cried wolf, eh?

How many years (if not decades) have they spent trying to hound Hillary on all the things she has done in politics (Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, etc.)?

We're talking about a woman who was able to withstand an 11-hour grilling by the Benghazi Committee. If she's able to endure that, she's more than able to endure whatever kind of stress or shenanigans that will happen in the future.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton (not even in the slightest) and I have no desire to vote for her, but the GOP truly dropped the ball here in this case. All those years of attacks and shouting against Hillary, and all it amounted to in the end was jack shit.

It's amazing. Now the GOP want to interrogate Comey. It's an investigation of an investigation of an investigation at this point.

These morons just don't know when to quit and it always bites them in the ass. They are probably too scared of the wrath of the crazies to be able to act strategically.