According to statute, anybody involved in any of those email chains with classified info were guilty of felonies.
Would the net have been too big, making the fallout too dangerous for either party to push? Maybe dragging in too many top bureacrats and career politicians from both sides of the aisle? Or maybe if they prosecuted this it would have also led to prosecutions against Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice for similar - but fewer - violations?
Makes a guy wonder..
Last edited by Calhoun; 07/05/16.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
It is official, we live in a banana republic. There is one set of laws for us, and another set for the privileged people.......
Yup. Im afraid so. She is as guilty as sin and they let her walk. We have been set up again,with the out right corruption staring us squarely in the face.
They lie directly in our faces and expect us to take it,knowing we will.
Ants Marching.
Yep.
Laid out a prima facie case for hundreds of charges, and then says "no indictment". I know it just happened, but I still can't believe it was that blatant.
I can... They've not even tried to hide the corruption in gov't over the last few years.. Now - they simply BRAG about it..
I'm telling ya - at some point boys and girls, it might get real bloody..
I would like to think you are right about "bloody" but don't see anyone doing anything. We are frogs in the warm water and the USA is toast. So sad.
" The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson.
And then rubs our faces in it by saying they could/would prosecute anyone else for the same charges.
I think that that part may possibly have been Comey's feeble attempt at showing his distaste with what he was forced to say, but couldn't come right out and be direct with it.
While it's true that all liberals are crazy people, not all crazy people are liberals.
And then rubs our faces in it by saying they could/would prosecute anyone else for the same charges.
I think that that part may possibly have been Comey's feeble attempt at showing his distaste with what he was forced to say, but couldn't come right out and be direct with it.
He wasn't "Forced" to say or do anything. He chose do do this, for his own gain and benefit.
HUGE difference.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
"There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case."
Once again, this administration makes it obvious that laws don't matter, so why should anyone care about any law they pass.
Couldn't agree more strongly Scott
SS for us, not for them
ACA for us, not for them
Laws for us, not for them
[bleep] them
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
Slick Willy must have handed lynch a "Golden Parachute" and one for her to give to Comey during the meeting on the Tarmac. No surprise at all, just as expected.
I have often heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Guess I heard a lot of stuff that isn't true, too. We have put our trust in turncoats. Trump better frickin win.
