FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that despite evidence Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified emails on a private server, the Department of Justice would not recommend charges being brought against the former secretary of state.
“Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, did not immediately respond. Her Republican rival, Donald Trump, did — blasting the FBI’s recommendation.
“FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem” he tweeted.
The decision helps remove what was arguably the biggest threat to her presidential campaign going forward – a criminal referral that could have led to an indictment – just weeks before her party’s national convention in Philadelphia where she is set to seal her nomination as the Democrat standard bearer.
Clinton consistently had downplayed the FBI investigation, even calling it a “security review,” and as recently as June 3 said there was “absolutely no possibility” she’d be indicted. Weeks ago, a scathing State Department inspector general report directly countered her long-running claim that her personal email use was allowed, though her campaign continued to defend the candidate’s actions.
More at Fox News
@Randy: And how do the classifications markings wind up on the documents, Randy? Do they just magically appear IF the information is worthy, as Greg believes, or does the information have to go through a screening and evaluation process, which much of Hillary’s could not because she put it straight on her server?
@Randy:
Well Hillary no longer has a job as SoS
So unsure of how she could/would be punished administratively
But as you indicated not punished by being indicted for criminal behavior
When Trey Gowdy mistakenly revealed the name of a CIA source ( former Intel chief of Libya) that also was on Clinton’s server he too mishandled TS classed info
Do you think he too should have been indicted? Even though it was unintentional ?
@Bill:
Actually the bulk of those 1000 happened before Obama
Now Trey Gowdy he publicly broadcast that former Libya spy chief Mossa Koussa was now being paid by the CIA
This was TS of a very important human resource that might have put his life in danger
This info was on the Clinton server
Should they both be inducted?
Or
Should we take the more realistic view that of course anyone who cared would have already known/assumed Mossa Koussa was bought and paid for by the CIA as well as other organizations
Now that his name is on YOUR sever/hard drive Are you somehow obligated to remove this TS info that you have not been cleared to have?
Are you really in possession of TS info?
Are you going to self report this to the FBI ?
It is a lot easier to stamp something TS
Than it is to erase that stamp
The location of the Anbex in BENGHAZI!!! That too is classified
First of all I think Hillary is guilty as sin and so does Comey. I think he fell on his sword to get the facts out, in essence he indicted her before the American public, knowing if the case was referred on to the DOJ it would be covered up and the investigation was already compromised by Loretta Lynch. None of the details of her dirty deeds would come to light. Last week’s events surely showed the fix was in, but how was it be carried out? That was the question.
If you look carefully at his words, he said that to give this detailed report of the investigation was not standard practice but public interest made it necessary and to to show the integrity of the FBI’s investigation. Not normal procedure.
He also said he had conferred with no one or gave access in advance to his statement. This may very well may be true. That doesn’t mean others did not know the facts the FBI uncovered and discussions within the FBI over the legal process. Also there were leaks that said on Sunday she would not be referred to DOJ and then her campaign trip with Obama. She was not worried.
He may have been told what to do without his statement yesterday being false. We don’t know how they attempted to influence his decision. We don’t know what his options were. We don’t know who said what to him but he wrote his report alone. I do not believe they thought he would present all the damning details of the investigation. Maybe it is the perfect double cross to the powers above him.
Now his decision not to refer to the DOJ makes him look very bad, his integrity is put into question. He will be required to answer more questions about how he came to the decision not to refer. More damning information will come out. This would never have happened if he had just referred the case on to the DOJ. So he hung his decision not to refer the case on flimsy legal ground (according to legal minds).
His career is no doubt in ruins but the truth comes out, even with the fix. He served up Hillary’s guilt, her crimes, incompetence, veracity, negligence up on a silver platter. This is my conspiracy theory and I am sticking to it, until proved otherwise. It explains to me his angry demeanor when laying out all the damning evidence and then the startling, weak explanation of his decision not to refer to DOJ.
Here is the paragraph of his opening statement: “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.”
Thank you Jim Comey!
@John: The situation should be investigated and, if Gowdy did something wrong, he could loose privileges, clearances and his seat on the panel.
However, a quick bit of research reveals the State Department (yeah… THAT State Department) failed to remove the name or identify it on an email it provided to Gowdy.
So, waddya think, John… Gowdy’s error or State’s?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-release-cia-source-name-benghazi-committee-214919
You do struggle with your moral equivalencies, don’t you?
@John: Did you not read the link I privided? Perhaps you should.
@Bill:
Should he have known that it was, or should have been classified even if it was not marked as such ?
Wasn’t that Clinton’s excuse?
That CIA source’s name is STILL. Classified TS
Mousse Koussa
Now it is on your email
Is that really a crime?
@Songbird:
I was wondering the same. He gets up there and makes a rock solid case for indictment and exposes all of her lies, even more than we were originally aware of, and then recommends no prosecution directly and absurdly contradicting what he had just told us. Perhaps he wanted to make it sound so absurd that people would demand answers. Maybe it was his way of saying, “She’s guilty as hell, but no prosecutor would take this case because the fix has been in since the beginning.” After all, Hillary told us quite confidently a long time ago that she would never be indicted. Tomorrow will tell when he goes before the House as to whether or not this was his way of getting the real story out there or whether or not he is compliant in the miscarriage of justice.
@another vet #60 –
One of the things that may have entered into the calculation was the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. I think this “chance” meeting did enough to gum up the works all around: making it nearly impossible for Hillary to be prosecuted, but not enough to give Hillary a “clean bill of health”. We know Bill to be a duplicitous, conniving manipulator of the first order. Regardless of what Comey has to say, a lot of this remains to be played out. The other point that seems to be missing from the entire discussion is whether Obama would have used his unfettered authority to extend a pardon if he recommended Hillary to be prosecuted. Comey laying out the facts gets around his real problem of a pardon, saying if you wish to vote for Hillary, you do so at your own risk.
@David:
I don’t think a pardon can be issued before a conviction
And probably not enough time left in his term
What no more chat about the danger of the dictator Obama declaring martial law and for one reason or another grabbing a 3rd term ????
Didn’t the Doctor once write about that???
@David: If Hillary was prosecuted and convicted, then Obama could pardon her, as Gerald Ford did for Pres. Nixon. I agree, I think Obama would do that. I just don’t think Loretta Lynch and the DOJ would ever prosecute Hillary or make all the facts available to the public. This public trial is much better.
@David: I think the public is now very aware of the risk of Hillary being President.@another vet: I can’t wait. I have waited many years for the Clinton’s dishonesty to be made public. I am relishing it! Some of us know of it but not the general public. This is HUUUUGE
@another vet: Hillary and Bill have never been held responsible for their actions. Either she actually did know she was never going to be prosecuted or she figured it was business as usual, she can lie about everything and never follow the rules as other people.
@another vet: @another vet: “Maybe it was his way of saying, “She’s guilty as hell, but no prosecutor would take this case because the fix has been in since the beginning.” I completely agree. It is the only explanation for a man who was so highly regarded as honest and fair to do what he did yesterday. IMO It just did not make any sense and I could just not wrap my head around it. Until I put it together in this way. And thanks to his decision to make that statement yesterday, we will learn much more as he is questioned and provides more details. Can anyone say, Watergate? HeHeHe
@Songbird: We can only hope that the reason he did this was to make it sound so absurd they would have to call him to the House to explain himself. This is another travesty of justice but times have changed since Watergate. Back then politicians were held to be more accountable by the people. Now it’s clearly party and ideology first then country and rule of law second, if the latter two even matter any more. To the left they sure as hell don’t.
@David: Methinks the fix was in since day one and this whole thing was a smokescreen. You and I would have been doing time at Leavenworth for a fraction of what she got away with.
@Songbird:watergate?
Well Nixon had that prosecutor fired
And people with honor resigned before they would fire him. Finally they found someone ( John Ashcroft, Later AG of Bush to do it)
So I haven’t seen anyone resigning here because they think the FBI should have recommended prosecution
I myself predict little or no long term effect on national polls
@another vet: The devil is in the coverup. I think that remains the same.
@Songbird: of course it is the cover up that gets them
But in this case who could be found responsible? The Director of the FBI?
A highly regarded Republican ?
He! ? Is the cover up ? That is going to be stretch to go there
If the House is going to go after him with a third Clinton investigation people are going to say witch hunt they already swung and missed twice
Would they risk s third failure?
AlreDy the White House looks gone, the Senate probably gone(60/40 as of right now) if they fail in a third investigation in a row it might cost them the House
@John: We don’t know yet what was involved behind the scenes here. (the fix) And it was Nixon’s attempts to cover up the illegal activity that brought him down. We shall see what comes out as Comey is questioned further and things roll on from there. Lynch will be questioned next week. We may never know what went on behind closed doors but Hillary’s dishonesty is undeniable now. The poor decisions she made and extreme negligence while Secretary of State are out now. That was her main claim to fame, being Secretary of State. I think the American public will care about her dishonesty. Even the main stream media can’t cover this up. The public won’t forget unless the Republicans f**k it up.
@John #62, @Songbird #63 –
If you recall Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon in 1974, Nixon wasn’t convicted of anything. Nixon had just resigned the presidency in face of damning evidence about the Watergate cover-up. Nixon would have undoubtedly been removed from office if his impeachment had gone to trial in the Senate. Ford did testify on Capitol Hill there was no quid pro quo regarding Nixon resigning from office in return for the pardon. Ford did not have to do that since a president’s authority to pardon and commute sentences, at any level, is unquestioned. Obama could do the same for Hillary if he wanted, vacant of any charges or conviction.
@John: We don’t know what is covered up. Surely there was something going on that looks like a fix. That is the cover up. We don’t know yet. Who will be held responsible? Who can say at this point. We don’t know the rest of the story.
@David: He was guilty but chose to resign so he did not have to face the consequences and maintain some kind of dignity for himself and the Presidency. Yet Ford did pardon him. Hmmm. Not convicted of anything, yet pardoned. Could it happen again?
@Songbird:
Well certainly if there was s cover up it was in the investigation done by the FBI
Do you have doubts about the investigation that was done by them?
@Songbird:
It could only happen if Obama wanted to ruin the chance of Clinton bring POTUS
A pardon would surely make the majority of people think she was guilty of breaking a Federal law ,they don’t now
@John: I never said anything like that.
@John: I think talking about a pardon is putting the cart before the horse. The point I am making is that there is much more to be learned about how this will be played out as Comey, Lynch and others provide (or not) information.
I presume the Congressional interrogation of FBI Director James Comey will be televised. I understand that the use of waterboarding to get the required answers has been ruled out.
I was asking a question
Do you think that the FBI investigation was part of a cover up?
@Greg:
Unlikely to immediately rule out such an effective resource
I would expect someone maybe Trey Gowdy or Issa to soon announce a special committee and saying that “all options are on the table” concerning methods of interrogation ( of course classified)
@Greg: HAH! Only if I get to see Hillary waterboarded. It would be interesting to see if she can tell the truth, even then.
The truth?? When people are water boarded they don’t tell “the truth”
They say whatever they think the torturer wants them to say
Water boarding is great to get a confession to whatever crime you want confessed to
It was a fav of PolPot’s Khmer Rouge
One of the few who survived said that he confessed to being KGB spy, CIA spy, Spy for Vietnam, and also being a Cardinal in the Catholic Church
I don’t like to see people, anyone, tortured
Not even “enemies”
@Songbird:
Someone as reptillian as Hillary would be able to take waterboarding quite well, I’m sure.
@John: No, not even waterboarding would get Hillary to speak the truth. That would be against her very nature.
@Bill: @Bill: @Bill: @John: I was joking about Hillary not able to tell the truth even if tortured. Some people can literally cannot tell the truth, even if the truth would serve them better than a lie.
Presumption of innocence:
Hillary Clinton hasn’t been charged with a crime. The FBI findings sited “carelessness” but found no hint of criminal intent.
The Republican-led House of Representatives will attempt to indict Clinton, but you can’t expect THEM to conduct an impartial investigation OR to reach a fair verdict, can you? Republicans’ “first priority” was to make Obama’s a one term presidency, remember? And Democrats would have pledged to do the same thing. Politics is a dirty business, and should never be confused with justice. Political entities have no business pretending to administer justice, but the House Republicans will pretend to do just that.
With it so difficult to find ANYONE in politics worthy of respect much less pride, it comes as no surprise that a clown like Donald Trump has made it as far as he has. THAT is something Bill can feel sorry for.
@George Wells: O.J. is innocent too.
@Songbird:
GOP members of the House including Gowdy and Issa have intentionally leaked classified information to the press for political gain
Yet they feel they can now sit in judgement on the Director of the FBI James Comey a man who they praised two weeks ago
This, because of a decision he reached in good faith of the law
Americans will vote in Nov, I think Clinton will be elected
I think once again people will scream FRAUD!!! Most likely in states where the GOP is in charge of certifying the vote counting
@George Wells:
To be precise, the FBI cited “extreme carelessness”, aka gross negligence, which is what the law addresses. The law does not require criminal intent.
@John:
I think Comey was between a rock and a hard place. I think he wanted to press charges, but was told something along the lines of, “if you do, something will happen to you, or your family”. So he did the only possible thing he could – perhaps the threat did not mention that he could not hang out enough info in his statement that the issue does not go away – only that his recommendation for prosecution should be negative.
Today he is set to testify – which would probably not have happened if his statement had not been so damning in the first place. I want him to be asked “Why are you introducing criminal intent into a law that does not contain that requirement”, among other things.
With two days to digest the non-event in question, not being able to find any thread of logic in Comey’s decision, I think we have to look at the human element.
I agree with a previous comment, that Comey was between a rock and a hard place. But I wouldn’t go so far as to imply actual threats. Whichever decision he took, he was going to generate enormous amounts of criticism from the other side. So let’s ask, which decision would result in the least amount of pain, for him?
Opting not to indict, he enrages the Right. What are they going to do? Well, they’ll drag him before Congress and ask him questions. OOoooooo…. They had Hillary dead to rights on Benghazi, and they couldn’t land a solid punch. They had Lois Lerner under oath, and she’s still collecting her six-figure pension to this very day. The Washington Times, Fox News, the blogosphere would blow up for a week, but then it would subside. So if the Right is angered? BFD. Life goes on.
But suppose he recommends indictment? Then he faces the self-righteous wrath of the Left. The media explodes. The NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the reliable megaphones of the Democratic party all rain down on him, relentlessly, 24/7. The Unions, the Feminists, Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter, the liberal intelligensia, all hammer him, screaming from the rooftops. He’s pilloried as the civil servant who single-handedly decided that America isn’t ready for a Woman President. Comey becomes the face of the privileged white male; just another misogynist who wants to maintain the status quo at the cost of keeping women, (and by extension, minorities, and the underprivileged, and all the other coalition groups), in their place. Think about how they treated the brilliant, soft-spoken, dedicated, Ken Starr. He went from being on the short list of Supreme Court nominees to a pariah, his lifelong dream destroyed. And things have only gotten uglier since then.
So my take is, I think he took the easy (easier) way out. Not knowing his heart, I won’t call it the coward’s way out. But these considerations I’ve mentioned make far more logical sense than the absurd and self-conflicting rationalizations he told at that press conference.
@Dreadnought: John I am thrilled an unbiased government official finally called Hillary out on her behavior. I admire Comey for that and hope Republicans don’t shoot themselves in the foot by making him the bad guy. Dreadnot, I think he was between a rock and a hard place also. Maybe Hillary called some old friends in Arkansas who kidnapped his wife and children and held them hostage until he said he would not send her case on to the DOJ. Too bad Comey is not Liam Neeson and went out and kicked some serious ass afterward. That is intended as humor for all the those who are a little to serious. I was kidding, well sort of…….
@Vollero:
Well it sure sounds to me that you are coming very very close to calling him a coward
Dishonourable at the least
This because of a profession able decision that you do not agree with
@John: It isn’t that I disagree with his decision – it’s that given the actual wording of the law and the behavior and actions that he himself described, his explanation makes no logical sense. This rationale behind his decision was either purely political, or personal. It was not the Law.
And that fact has serious ramifications.
@Songbird:
I too believe Comey is professionally unbiased (although personally a Republican) However because the GOP will be nominating Trump this “scandal” was seen as probably being the last best chance to stop Clinton politically
Again we have not seen at this time ANY of the many FBI investigators publicly disagree with the decision of the Director so either the whole of the FBI has been taken over, or more likely, Comey made the correct decision
@Vollero:
No one has ever been convicted of mishandling classified information because of “carelessness”
In the past that was always handled administratively
If you lose your laptop filled with classified info maybe you get fired or fined or demoted
You don’t get indicted, not ever. However, if through willfull actions that happens then you WILL be indicted.
Comey tried to explain that in his statement, some just didn’t want to hear it
Proveable intent makes all the difference, in this case it was lacking
@Vollero: the thing is here in the USA we don’t actually get to make our own interpretations of THE LAW
That is done by police and prosecutors
In this case by the Director of the FBI
For some reason you think his decision was based on politics
Where yours is not
His decision was his best professional effort whether he personally agreed or not, his decision was a choice that he made based on the law as HE knows it and also I am sure in consultation with others in that Bureau
An organization I think we would both agree is NOT filled with hippie leftists
@John:
He is taking a law, which clearly says what it says, and telling Congress, who wrote the law, and tries to convince them that it means something other than what it says.
One huge concern is that the FBI aparently did not take a broad view of the investigation. For example, apparantly they did not even ask HRC “Why did you set up this private server?” WTF???
@John:
@Vollero: I think that is excellent analysis. The left always explodes in loud indignance, if not violence, while the right chooses not to act like spoiled children and debate the issue.
@Songbird:
We do jest about these scenarios but the sad fact of the matter is that anyone that knows the history of the Clinton’s knows they ar capable of anything… Underwood-style.
@John:
Hmmm… did Hillary get demoted? Did she get officially reprimanded? Has any Democrat even said she’s done something wrong?
Why, no! In fact, the President has endorsed her and stated she is “the most qualified person to ever seek the office”.
What’s wrong with this picture? Well, nothing if viewed through liberal eyes.