FBI Clinton investigation - Comey delivers statement

[Th'Pusher]

So what? I wasn't commenting on the law of handling confidential do ents, and I wasn't using the word "intent" in reference to the crimes that were alleged against Hillary. I was using it in response to your analogy that a drunk driver could avoid prosecution by claiming to have not intended to get drunk.

At that, gross negligence is (contrary to the spin most talking heads want to put on it) a term that connotes (or is expressly defined) to involve something akin to a conscious violation of other people's right to safety. In tort law, you don't get to gross negligence just by showing that somebody did something stupid and reckless; you have to show that the tortfeasor was objectively aware of the danger to others involved in his actions and that with awareness of that danger to others, proceeded anyway with the tortious conduct. Once you get to the point of requiring awareness or consciousness of the danger your conduct poses to others, you're all but requiring a showing of intent. Acting irresponsibly can be gross negligence in some instances, but as a matter of law it is not gross negligence in every instance.

This is the crux of dismantling the 'no intent is required' argument. It has been and will continue to be ihnored by CC, TSA, etc.

[Capt Bringdown]

[elbamba]

So what? I wasn't commenting on the law of handling confidential do ents, and I wasn't using the word "intent" in reference to the crimes that were alleged against Hillary. I was using it in response to your analogy that a drunk driver could avoid prosecution by claiming to have not intended to get drunk.

At that, gross negligence is (contrary to the spin most talking heads want to put on it) a term that connotes (or is expressly defined) to involve something akin to a conscious violation of other people's right to safety. In tort law, you don't get to gross negligence just by showing that somebody did something stupid and reckless; you have to show that the tortfeasor was objectively aware of the danger to others involved in his actions and that with awareness of that danger to others, proceeded anyway with the tortious conduct. Once you get to the point of requiring awareness or consciousness of the danger your conduct poses to others, you're all but requiring a showing of intent. Acting irresponsibly can be gross negligence in some instances, but as a matter of law it is not gross negligence in every instance.

I am certainly no expert in criminal law. I believe that criminal gross negligence is similar in that to be found guilty of criminal gross negligence the defendant must be subjectively aware of the risk and disregard it. Whether that happened in this case, I will leave that to people who followed it more closely. I am getting my update via Spurstalk.

[TheSanityAnnex]

This is the crux of dismantling the 'no intent is required' argument. It has been and will continue to be ihnored by CC, TSA, etc.

Here is your intent.

[ducks]

lol 54 percent think fbi is wrong

[SnakeBoy]

You are living in fantasyland. That can got kicked way down the road. Comey will be gone when Hillary gets elected and a Clinton justice department will never allow Clinton to be indicted.

Comey is Director until 2023 unless he chooses not to be.

Not that I agree with TSA's assertion.

[boutons_deux]

FBI Director James Comey Breaks Federal Prosecutor Rules by Smearing but Not Indicting Clinton Over Emails

Prosecutorial excess and abuse of power.

But what almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign.

The Department of Justice’s manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted.
“It goes beyond discretion,” said an ex-Connecticut public defender. “It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”
The Department of Justice’s voluminous U.S. Attorneys Manual has sections restricting press comments when there’s no indictment in all but the most exceptional cases, barring prosecutors from interfering in political campaigns. It states that prosecutors should not name unindicted defendants, and even cites federal court rulings chastising prosecutors for doing exactly that.

Comey, a Republican appointed as FBI director by President Obama, crossed all three of those lines.

Very few commentators noted that Comey shouldn’t have said anything at all, and how unusual it was that he did. One exception was Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Ins ution.

“The first notable thing in FBI director Jim Comey's statement on the Clinton email flap is that he issued it,” he wrote.

“Normally, the FBI does not issue reports on its investigative findings separate from Justice Department decisions regarding what to do with those findings.

Much less does it make public its recommendations, particularly in a fashion that effectively preempts the Justice Department's prosecutorial decisions with respect to those recommendations.”

Comey’s hubris didn’t stop there, Wittes noted. The man who drew Obama’s attention because as an FBI official he privately opposed the Bush administration's torture proposals, told the press Tuesday that, “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.”

Beyond the fact that the DOJ prosecutors' manual states that all statements have to be cleared through department filters,

Comey’s assertion that his remarks are called for as matter of great public interest—“Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way”—falls flat upon close scrutiny.

What he presented was extremely political, and if the DOJ prosecutors' manual is to be taken seriously, equally unprofessional.

Comey went in for the political hit,

“They were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said, referring to Clinton’s tech-support staff. “For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret/special access program level when they were sent and received… 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.”

Then came a series of additional slaps and smears.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails 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,” Comey said. “Even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Comey then hit the State Department for allowing Clinton to use private emails, without acknowledging that former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing.

Then came more guilt-by-association.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” he said, which translated, means people she was communicating with were likely targeted by hackers. He speculated, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Then Comey backtracked, concluding that none of this carelessness rose to the level of a criminal violation that could be prosecuted.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-breaks-federal-prosecutor-rules-smearing-not-indicting

Comey going full Ken Starr.

[ducks]

www.alternet.org most liberal site ever

[boutons_deux]

www.alternet.org most liberal site ever

shoot the messenger.

The little Comey smeared Hillary in the middle of Pres campaign, got his few minutes of fame.

[pgardn]

shoot the messenger.

The little Comey smeared Hillary in the middle of Pres campaign, got his few minutes of fame.

She helped him by lying.

Of course Hillary's opponent for president is a serial liar, so, there's that.

[TheSanityAnnex]

FBI Director James Comey Breaks Federal Prosecutor Rules by Smearing but Not Indicting Clinton Over Emails

Prosecutorial excess and abuse of power.

But what almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign.

The Department of Justice’s manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted.
“It goes beyond discretion,” said an ex-Connecticut public defender. “It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”
The Department of Justice’s voluminous U.S. Attorneys Manual has sections restricting press comments when there’s no indictment in all but the most exceptional cases, barring prosecutors from interfering in political campaigns. It states that prosecutors should not name unindicted defendants, and even cites federal court rulings chastising prosecutors for doing exactly that.

Comey, a Republican appointed as FBI director by President Obama, crossed all three of those lines.

Very few commentators noted that Comey shouldn’t have said anything at all, and how unusual it was that he did. One exception was Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Ins ution.

“The first notable thing in FBI director Jim Comey's statement on the Clinton email flap is that he issued it,” he wrote.

“Normally, the FBI does not issue reports on its investigative findings separate from Justice Department decisions regarding what to do with those findings.

Much less does it make public its recommendations, particularly in a fashion that effectively preempts the Justice Department's prosecutorial decisions with respect to those recommendations.”

Comey’s hubris didn’t stop there, Wittes noted. The man who drew Obama’s attention because as an FBI official he privately opposed the Bush administration's torture proposals, told the press Tuesday that, “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.”

Beyond the fact that the DOJ prosecutors' manual states that all statements have to be cleared through department filters,

Comey’s assertion that his remarks are called for as matter of great public interest—“Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way”—falls flat upon close scrutiny.

What he presented was extremely political, and if the DOJ prosecutors' manual is to be taken seriously, equally unprofessional.

Comey went in for the political hit,

“They were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said, referring to Clinton’s tech-support staff. “For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret/special access program level when they were sent and received… 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.”

Then came a series of additional slaps and smears.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails 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,” Comey said. “Even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Comey then hit the State Department for allowing Clinton to use private emails, without acknowledging that former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing.

Then came more guilt-by-association.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” he said, which translated, means people she was communicating with were likely targeted by hackers. He speculated, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Then Comey backtracked, concluding that none of this carelessness rose to the level of a criminal violation that could be prosecuted.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-breaks-federal-prosecutor-rules-smearing-not-indicting

Comey going full Ken Starr.

Of course he did what he did. He knew the DOJ would never indict if he recommended and he knew if he recommended indictment the DOJ would sit on the information and keep it from the public until after the general election. The sitting attorney general just met with the former President who's wife was being investigated for s sake. The voting public deserved to hear about the multiple felonies the Democratic nominee lied about and tried to cover up.

[boutons_deux]

Of course he did what he did. He knew the DOJ would never indict if he recommended and he knew if he recommended indictment the DOJ would sit on the information and keep it from the public until after the general election. The sitting attorney general just met with the former President who's wife was being investigated for s sake. The voting public deserved to hear about the multiple felonies the Democratic nominee lied about and tried to cover up.

"of course" the Repug broke DoJ rules and smeared the Dem candidate.

Felonies?

[boutons_deux]

John Galt Ryan, another nasty ing Catholic Repug, says he will sic his Congress attack dogs on Hillary about the emails.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Question to all of the shameless Clinton defenders, do you think Lynch would have indicted had Comey recommended?

[Fabbs]

John Galt Ryan, another nasty ing Catholic Repug, says he will sic his Congress attack dogs on Hillary about the emails.

Do Repugs ever actually do anything, attempt to implement any of their own policies?
All I ever see and hear them do is about ____ _____ ____ Democrat.

[DarrinS]

I wonder what would happen to someone if they violated their company's security policy hundreds of times over the course of four years?

[DarrinS]

Ask your CIO if you can set up your own email server?

[TheSanityAnnex]

FBI Director James Comey Breaks Federal Prosecutor Rules by Smearing but Not Indicting Clinton Over Emails

Prosecutorial excess and abuse of power.

But what almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign.

The Department of Justice’s manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted.
“It goes beyond discretion,” said an ex-Connecticut public defender. “It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”
The Department of Justice’s voluminous U.S. Attorneys Manual has sections restricting press comments when there’s no indictment in all but the most exceptional cases, barring prosecutors from interfering in political campaigns. It states that prosecutors should not name unindicted defendants, and even cites federal court rulings chastising prosecutors for doing exactly that.

Comey, a Republican appointed as FBI director by President Obama, crossed all three of those lines.

Very few commentators noted that Comey shouldn’t have said anything at all, and how unusual it was that he did. One exception was Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Ins ution.

“The first notable thing in FBI director Jim Comey's statement on the Clinton email flap is that he issued it,” he wrote.

“Normally, the FBI does not issue reports on its investigative findings separate from Justice Department decisions regarding what to do with those findings.

Much less does it make public its recommendations, particularly in a fashion that effectively preempts the Justice Department's prosecutorial decisions with respect to those recommendations.”

Comey’s hubris didn’t stop there, Wittes noted. The man who drew Obama’s attention because as an FBI official he privately opposed the Bush administration's torture proposals, told the press Tuesday that, “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.”

Beyond the fact that the DOJ prosecutors' manual states that all statements have to be cleared through department filters,

Comey’s assertion that his remarks are called for as matter of great public interest—“Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way”—falls flat upon close scrutiny.

What he presented was extremely political, and if the DOJ prosecutors' manual is to be taken seriously, equally unprofessional.

Comey went in for the political hit,

“They were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said, referring to Clinton’s tech-support staff. “For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret/special access program level when they were sent and received… 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.”

Then came a series of additional slaps and smears.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails 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,” Comey said. “Even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Comey then hit the State Department for allowing Clinton to use private emails, without acknowledging that former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing.

Then came more guilt-by-association.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” he said, which translated, means people she was communicating with were likely targeted by hackers. He speculated, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Then Comey backtracked, concluding that none of this carelessness rose to the level of a criminal violation that could be prosecuted.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-breaks-federal-prosecutor-rules-smearing-not-indicting

Comey going full Ken Starr.

alternet
boutons
Comey the Federal Prosecutor
Comey's ability to indict

[Th'Pusher]

Of course he did what he did. He knew the DOJ would never indict if he recommended and he knew if he recommended indictment the DOJ would sit on the information and keep it from the public until after the general election. The sitting attorney general just met with the former President who's wife was being investigated for s sake. The voting public deserved to hear about the multiple felonies the Democratic nominee lied about and tried to cover up.

This tinfoil hat theory is boarding on lunacy. Do you have any idea of the optics of the FBI director recommending indictment and the DOJ sitting on that information until after the election? Having the director of the FBI recommend an indictment would have killed her campaign. Just knowing of the recommended indictment without knowing the specifics would be exponentially worse than knowing factually that she was grossly careless with 100 classified emails.

[TheSanityAnnex]

This tinfoil hat theory is boarding on lunacy. Do you have any idea of the optics of the FBI director recommending indictment and the DOJ sitting on that information until after the election? Having the director of the FBI recommend an indictment would have killed her campaign. Just knowing of the recommended indictment without knowing the specifics would be exponentially worse than knowing factually that she was grossly careless with 100 classified emails.

He just as well could have been told (forced) not to recommend an indictment, and this was his fine and now you to them. He literally laid out all of the reasons to indict and then said he would not recommend because of who she was, all without disclosing to the DOJ what he was going to say.

Do you think honestly think Lynch would have indicted had he recommended it? Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?

[TheSanityAnnex]

This tinfoil hat theory is boarding on lunacy. Do you have any idea of the optics of the FBI director recommending indictment and the DOJ sitting on that information until after the election? Having the director of the FBI recommend an indictment would have killed her campaign. Just knowing of the recommended indictment without knowing the specifics would be exponentially worse than knowing factually that she was grossly careless with 100 classified emails.

recommended indictment killing her campaign
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public...en_if_indicted

[Th'Pusher]

He just as well could have been told (forced) not to recommend an indictment, and this was his fine and now you to them. He literally laid out all of the reasons to indict and then said he would not recommend because of who she was, all without disclosing to the DOJ what he was going to say.

Do you think honestly think Lynch would have indicted had he recommended it? Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?

How would he have been forced not to recommend an indictment? You're just making up dude. Back your up with facts and quit with the bull tbh.

If if he would have recommended indictment it would have been devastating for her campaign and it would have been compounded by lynch sitting on the details of why he recommended. Your theory is moronic.

[ElNono]

IMO, this has nothing to do with intent or any of that, and everything to do with likelyhood of winning a trial and obtaining a conviction. And analysis like that happens all the time in pretty much all cases before going ahead and pressing charges.

There's zero doubt that such test isn't applied evenly when the alleged perpetrator is a petty criminal, a megamillionaire, or a public figure. This case isn't an exception to that. You might not like that system (I particularly do not), but that's how it works.

That doesn't excuse Shillary's actions, at all, but those looking for the "coverup" angle, I think, are deeply misguided, mostly feeding their inner red teamer frustration.

[Th'Pusher]

recommended indictment killing her campaign
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public...en_if_indicted

That assumes she is indicted by the DOJ Nad facts of the indictment would available. Not your bull theory of a recommended indictment that never comes while the DOJ covers up the facts of the case.

And @ Rasmussen

[Th'Pusher]

IMO, this has nothing to do with intent or any of that, and everything to do with likelyhood of winning a trial and obtaining a conviction. And analysis like that happens all the time in pretty much all cases before going ahead and pressing charges.

There's zero doubt that such test isn't applied evenly when the alleged perpetrator is a petty criminal, a megamillionaire, or a public figure. This case isn't an exception to that. You might not like that system (I particularly do not), but that's how it works.

That doesn't excuse Shillary's actions, at all, but those looking for the "coverup" angle, I think, are deeply misguided, mostly feeding their inner red teamer frustration.

i agree with this. And your last statement is exactly where CC, TSA are living...just another emotional tailspin completely unhinged from logic and reason.