The Drip Drip Drip...

[Bicycle Bill]

Trump is now quoted as saying that the Attorney General was bribed to cover this up.
https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-suggests-hillary-clinton-bribed-attorney-general-over-032736651--abc-news-topstories.html

"So Hillary said today, at least according to what I saw on television, which you can't always believe. I actually found it hard to believe she'd said this, but she said today that we may consider the attorney general to go forward. That's like a bribe, isn't it? Isn't it sort of a bribe? I think it's a bribe,” Trump said.

"I mean, the attorney general sitting there saying, you know, if I get Hillary off the hook I'm going have four more years or eight more years, but if she loses I'm out of a job. It's a bribe! It's a disgrace!"

The more I hear coming out of this guy's mouth, the more I wonder how anybody with even half the brains God gave to a gopher can still think of voting for him.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

Personally, I don't even see this whole affair as reflecting anything about Clinton's professional competence or fitness to govern.

Yes, well, but then you're also the person who doesn't think Islamic Jihadism is any big deal...

Context is everything...

I think that this would be extremely reflective (and not in a good way) of Clinton's professional competence and fitness to govern:

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.

were it not for the fact that she has been blessed with an opponent who is just about the only person in the United States who is less fit to govern....

[Lord Jim]

As to Comey's press conference today; it violates the rules of DOJ

No, Comey violated no rules...

Under the law, The FBI Director is appointed to a 10 year non-fireable term (Comey, a Republican, was appointed by Obama in 2013) and it is entirely up to him what information he decides to release to the public in any case...

I think he made the exact right call here in deciding to go public with the whole process that the FBI followed, given the stakes involved...

With a major party nominee for the Presidency in the balance, it was entirely appropriate for the FBI Director to lay out publicly all of his findings, and his recommendation...

[Gob]

The more I hear coming out of this guy's mouth, the more I wonder how anybody with even half the brains God gave to a gopher can still think of voting for him.

Wes wouldn't clear that high bar, would he?

[Bicycle Bill]

The more I hear coming out of this guy's mouth, the more I wonder how anybody with even half the brains God gave to a gopher can still think of voting for him.

Wes wouldn't clear that high bar, would he?

No.  He strikes me as a mentally-challenged individual who has approximately a quarter of what God gave to the gopher — and then had a lobotomy.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

He strikes me as a mentally-challenged individual who has approximately a quarter of what God gave to the gopher — and then had a lobotomy.

which would make wes and rube well matched chess opponents...

[Jarlaxle]

Trump is now quoted as saying that the Attorney General was bribed to cover this up.
https://gma.yahoo.com/trump-suggests-hillary-clinton-bribed-attorney-general-over-032736651--abc-news-topstories.html

"So Hillary said today, at least according to what I saw on television, which you can't always believe. I actually found it hard to believe she'd said this, but she said today that we may consider the attorney general to go forward. That's like a bribe, isn't it? Isn't it sort of a bribe? I think it's a bribe,” Trump said.

"I mean, the attorney general sitting there saying, you know, if I get Hillary off the hook I'm going have four more years or eight more years, but if she loses I'm out of a job. It's a bribe! It's a disgrace!"

The more I hear coming out of this guy's mouth, the more I wonder how anybody with even half the brains God gave to a gopher can still think of voting for him.

-"BB"-

He's not Hillary.

[Bicycle Bill]

The more I hear coming out of this guy's mouth, the more I wonder how anybody with even half the brains God gave to a gopher can still think of voting for him.

-"BB"-

He's not Hillary.

If that's your only validating criterion for what it takes to be POTUS, then there's a world of people out there who are "not Hillary".  And you're saying that 'The Hairpiece That Walks Like A Man' is the best of the lot?  Good God, man, he's not presidential timber; he's a loose cannon on deck!

-"BB"-[/quote]

[Sue U]

Oh ferfucksake! Now these idiots are going to hold hearings to investigate the investigation! Because that always works out so well for them [cough] Benghazi [cough]! I'm sure they'll be able to figure out who took the strawberries this time!

July 05, 2016, 09:53 pm
Ryan: GOP will hold hearings on Clinton probe

By Jesse Byrnes

Republicans will hold hearings to learn more about the FBI's decision to not recommend criminal charges for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Tuesday night.

"People have been convicted for far less," Ryan said during an interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News's "The Kelly File," saying that he thought FBI Director James Comey "was going to recommend prosecution" based on the FBI director's opening remarks in a press conference Tuesday.

Ryan said the FBI's decision not to recommend charges "underscores the belief that the Clintons live above the law."

Comey said that while there was evidence Clinton and her staff were "extremely careless" with classified information, "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her in relation to her use of a private email server while secretary of State.

"We're going to have hearings," Ryan said on Fox, mentioning House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). Chaffetz indicated hours earlier on Fox that he was considering calling Comey to Capitol Hill to testify about the FBI's probe and conclusion not to recommend charges.

Ryan said Clinton "clearly lives above the law" and that Comey has ”shredded" Clinton's defense of her email practices while serving as secretary of State. Ryan described Clinton as "grossly negligent."

Ryan said the FBI should release its findings regarding the Clinton email investigation.

He also called for the director of National Intelligence to "block" Clinton from accessing classified information as a presidential candidate, given her handling of government secrets on her private email server.

"I don't think she should get classified information," Ryan said.

Republicans expressed anger and disbelief over the decision not to pursue criminal charges, with GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump blasting a "rigged" system.

Ryan said Chaffetz would be calling up Comey to ask questions.

"He didn't [answer] any questions with the press," Ryan said of Comey's remarks earlier Tuesday in Washington. "There are a lot of unanswered questions here, Megyn, that need to get answers to," Ryan said.

Ryan said the FBI "should give us all of their findings" in the Clinton investigation.

Source

[Guinevere]

OFFS

[Lord Jim]

I agree that politically this investigation is a dumb idea...

They ought to be exploiting the huge amount of ammunition Comey handed them yesterday, not trying to somehow discredit him...(which they won't succeed in doing...come to think of it, he'd make an excellent replacement as the nominee for Trump...)

Of course with Trump as the nominee, I'm happy to see them do this...

The last thing I'd want to see them doing is exploiting the gift they got from the FBI report effectively on his behalf...

That's a nice attempt at spinning the result, Jim...

The spin is all yours Sue, I'm just going by the plain meaning of what the man said:

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.

He's clearly saying that there's evidence that crimes (that's what "violations of the statutes" are; "crimes") were committed, but then he says that in his judgement no prosecutor would bring the case.

And when do prosecutors who believe that crimes have been committed not bring the case? When they don't believe that they have sufficient evidence to win the case; ie, meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

That was the judgement call that Comey made, as he clearly indicates in the passage I quoted...

Not a bit of "spin"... just facts based on what the man himself said.

[Sue U]

Jim, I notice you left out the part of Comey's statement coming immediately after the quote you highlighted:

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.

You can try to spin that any way you want, but the plain words say there was no evidence of intentional or wilful mishandling of classified information. To the extent there may have been some "evidence of potential violations of the statutes," it was insufficient to sustain a charge. "Reasonable doubt" is a jury determination made at the end of a trial; by contrast, sufficiency of evidence to go forward with filing a charge is a threshold question that a judge would decide on a motion to dismiss at the outset. If you don't have enough to get past an initial MTD, you don't file. That's the "reasonable prosecutor" determination.

[Lord Jim]

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.

That part actually puzzled me, because it seemed to conflict with what he said at the outset:

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.

Why did he leave out "or in a grossly negligent way" , after stating it as a standard for legal violation? Because even though that would constitute a violation of the law it hadn't been used before? So what?

Perhaps this incongruity is something he will clear up at the hearing tomorrow...

He certainly seemed to lay out an excellent case for gross negligence in most of what he said yesterday. You could basically use what he said in an opening statement in a prosecution...

[Sue U]

Why did he leave out "or in a grossly negligent way" , after stating it as a standard for legal violation? Because even though that would constitute a violation of the law it hadn't been used before? So what?

Perhaps this incongruity is something he will clear up at the hearing tomorrow...

He certainly seemed to lay out an excellent case for gross negligence in most of what he said yesterday. You could basically use what he said in an opening statement in a prosecution...

As I said earlier in this thread, such evidence as there may be simply does not rise to the standard of gross negligence, either:

Carelessness -- and even "extreme carelessness" -- is not the same thing as "gross negligence" and not even close to "intentional" mishandling of information. What Comey laid out was a case for simple negligence in the handling of 52 email threads containing a grand total of 110 emails, out of a total of more than 30,000 work-related emails reviewed, culled from more than 60,000 emails total. It's not nothing, but it hardly demonstrates the kind of wilful and reckless disregard of security rules that is damning evidence of criminal conduct. No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case here because there is simply no evidence for a case to bring -- it has absolutely nothing to do with "reasonable doubt" and everything to do with a lack of evidence of anything that meets the standard for prosecution.

As a general rule, gross negligence requires a demonstration of wanton, wilful and reckless disregard. Simple negligence is a "knew or should have known" standard. And, obviously, intentional conduct requires an actual culpable intent to violate the law.

[Lord Jim]

What Comey laid out was a case for simple negligence in the handling of 52 email threads containing a grand total of 110 emails

Well, that's your opinion, but it's not what he said. All he did was mention "gross negligence" as a standard to trigger charges at the outset of his remarks, and then omitted it when explaining why he wasn't recommending charges.

That's confusing, and needs to be explained.

I'm beginning to think there could be a good reason to have a hearing on this, provided it's just limited to having Comey answer questions and give a fuller and more complete explanation of what led him to his decision, and doesn't become some multi-witness drawn-out side-show trying to go through every single thing the FBI did in it's investigation.

Another thing he could explain is what he sees as the distinction between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence"...

To the average person, those two probably sound very similar...

I'm also hoping that he will be asked specifically about what I have referred to as the "smoking gun" email. The email that was released by the State Department where Clinton instructs an aide to remove classified markings from a document and send them through to her non-secure...

Doesn't seem to me that it can get anymore "willful" then that, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not."

[Burning Petard]

So a lessor being in the government bureaucracy who did something like this would have received disciplinary action? From reading about such discipline, I am guessing the offender would have been sent home for a week, with full pay, and a letter placed in their file.

[BoSoxGal]

LJ from what I understand from friends who work there the DOJ policy generally prohibits that kind of public statement about an investigation where a decision is made not to recommend charges. Certainly there are thousands of cases investigated by the FBI and not referred for prosecution in which no such statement is made. I think it was pretty political on his part and not terribly appropriate; a written release would have sufficed to meet the public's interest in the matter.

You may disagree but you've never been a prosecutor so I'll rely on my analysis and that of fellow one-time or current prosecutors.

[Lord Jim]

You may disagree but you've never been a prosecutor so I'll rely on my analysis and that of fellow one-time or current prosecutors.

Fine, and I'll rely on my knowledge of the fact that though technically under the Justice Department, the FBI Director is independent by statute and can use his own judgement.

Here's the explanation he gave at the beginning of his 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.

I can certainly understand why someone supporting Hillary Clinton would prefer that the extremely damning findings of the FBI investigation not have been made public, but Comey absolutely did the right thing.

This was no ordinary investigation. It involved the person who is the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Democratic party with the election just a few months away. The public interest right to know what was discovered was absolutely paramount. I applaud Jim Comey for providing the information that the electorate has every right to consider when deciding how they will vote. His transparency helps strengthen our democracy.

This wasn't "political" on his part. It was a matter of supreme public interest.

[Guinevere]

And the same thing goes for his conclusions, too. Not enough evidence to support a conclusion of wrong doing and a decision to prosecute.

End of story. Finis.