Debates
29 May 19
@lemon-lime saidYou have zero understanding of the applicable law, which was a section of the Espionage Act (not the "Kinda Careless Act" ). IG Horowitz's lengthy discussion of the law and the precedents under it shows what virtually every legal expert had said for months prior to Comey's July announcement; that there was no prosecutable case.
"Exonerating Clinton before the investigation is over is not the same thing as preparing a statement ahead of time. This is why I ask for links."----vivify, page two
And riding a bicycle is not the same thing as kicking a football. So what?
Hillary was at the very least guilty of negligence (a prosecutable crime). Comey was saying it wasn't 'willful' negligence, but ...[text shortened]... ty. Hurrah for you.
So tell me again, how was Comey not deliberately trying to exonerate Hillary?
I wrote this last June after the IG's report came out:
The IG's report covers the statute most right wingers think HRC should have been charged with extensively. Here's what it says:
Section 793(f)(1) does not define what constitutes “gross negligence,” nor
have any federal court decisions interpreted this specific provision of the statute.
However, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1) and
identified statements made during the 1917 congressional debate indicating that
the state of mind required for a violation of Section 793(f)(1) is “so gross as to
almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls
just a little short of being willful.” The prosecutors cited a statement by
Congressman Andrew Volstead during the 1917 debate about the predecessor to
Section 793(f)(1):
I want to call attention to the fact that the information that is covered
by this section may be, and probably would be, of the very highest
importance to the Government.... It is not an unusual provision at all.
It occurs in a great many criminal statutes. Men are convicted for
gross negligence, but it has to be so gross as almost to suggest
deliberate intention before a jury will convict. For instance, a person is
killed by a man running an automobile recklessly on a crowded street.
He may, and under the laws of most States would be, adjudged guilty
of manslaughter, and can be sent to State prison....
IG report pp. 30-31.
In Chapter 7, it has a long list of facts which do not support any claim of criminal "gross negligence" p. 255. Thus:
Based on facts evincing a lack of intent to communicate classified information
on unclassified systems, the prosecutors concluded that there was no basis to
recommend prosecution of former Secretary Clinton or the senders of classified
information under Sections 793(d) or (e).
In addition, as described in Chapter Two, prosecutors reviewed the legislative
history of the gross negligence provision in Section 793(f)(1) and court decisions
impacting the interpretation of it. The prosecutors noted that the congressional
debate at the time the predecessor to Section 793(f)(1) was passed indicated that
conduct charged under the provision must be “so gross as to almost suggest
deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short
of being willful.” The prosecutors also reviewed military and federal court cases
and previous prosecutions under Section 793(f)(1), and concluded that they
involved either a defendant who knowingly removed classified information from a
secure facility, or inadvertently removed classified information from a secure facility
and, upon learning this, failed to report its “loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction.”
In addition, based on a review of constitutional vagueness challenges of Sections
793(d) and (e), the Midyear prosecutors observed that “the government would very
likely face a colorable constitutional challenge to the statute if it prosecuted an
individual for gross negligence who was both unaware he had removed classified
information at the time of the removal and never became aware he had done so.”
The prosecutors concluded that based on case law and the Department’s
prior interpretation of the statute, charging a violation of Section 793(f) likely
required evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified
information “knowingly” included the classified information or transferred classified
information onto unclassified systems (Section 793(f)(1)), or learned that classified
information had been transferred to unclassified systems and failed to report it
(Section 793(f)(2)).
Applying this interpretation, the prosecutors concluded that there was no
evidence that the senders of emails knew that classified information had been
improperly transferred to an unclassified system, or that former Secretary Clinton
acted in a grossly negligent manner with respect to receiving emails determined to
contain classified information. According to information reviewed by the OIG, the
prosecutors also considered whether the decision to conduct official business using
a personal server could itself constitute gross negligence, but concluded that
there was no evidence that former Secretary Clinton ever considered the possibility
that classified information would be present in unclassified emails or on her private
email server. p. 256
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
It's a lot of legalese but the bottom line is what I said two years ago; criminal gross negligence is a different kettle of fish from mere extreme carelessness and there was no reasonable possibility that charges would have ever been filed here by any but the most politicized prosecutor.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/was-comey-that-ignorant.177379
Nothing I have heard makes me think Comey, the entire MidYear team or the IG got it wrong and right wingers on the blogosphere got it right.
31 May 19
@averagejoe1 saidWhat a small world you must live in if you think I have any trouble getting "wrenches."
Yall, we are winning Katznagorra over! Come on over to USA, I have a house I'll sell you ! And I want to show you a Publix and a Costco! And any convenience you need on any corner. America. You can get a left-handed monkey wrench anywhere1
31 May 19
@kazetnagorra saidleft-handed!! 🙂
What a small world you must live in if you think I have any trouble getting "wrenches."
@no1marauder saidIn his book, A Higher Loyalty, Comey doesn't exactly give HRC a ringing endorsement after the interview:
You have zero understanding of the applicable law, which was a section of the Espionage Act (not the "Kinda Careless Act" ). IG Horowitz's lengthy discussion of the law and the precedents under it shows what virtually every legal expert had said for months prior to Comey's July announcement; that there was no prosecutable case.
I wrote this last June after the IG's rep ...[text shortened]... y, the entire MidYear team or the IG got it wrong and right wingers on the blogosphere got it right.
"After discussion and careful review of her answers, there was nothing in her comments that we could prove was a lie beyond a reasonable doubt............................................ Whether we believed her or not, we had no significant proof otherwise." pp. 182-83----no 1marauder , page 3
Comey tells us what Comey said in a book written by and about Comey.
Well there ya go. What else do we need to know?
no prosecutable case = no crime
31 May 19
@lemon-lime saidYou should read it. He's an interesting character who's had a lot of noteworthy experiences. He comes off as a bit self-righteous and stubborn but hardly the incompetent fiend that right wingers have decided to paint him AFTER Trump fired him for not killing the investigation.
[b]In his book, A Higher Loyalty, Comey doesn't exactly give HRC a ringing endorsement after the interview:
"After discussion and careful review of her answers, there was nothing in her comments that we could prove was a lie beyond a reasonable doubt............................................ Whether we believed her or not, we had no significant proof otherwise." pp. ...[text shortened]... at Comey said in a book written by and about Comey.
Well there ya go. What else do we need to know?
The point was Comey was hardly an enthusiastic defender of HRC. A related point is that the decision not to prosecute was supported in the end by the entire MidYear team and was found to have been based on the law and not any improper motives by IG Horowitz.
31 May 19
@no1marauder saidSure, I get it. You're telling me Hillary was so horrendously incompetent and stupid she couldn't have possibly known that she was doing anything wrong.
You have zero understanding of the applicable law, which was a section of the Espionage Act (not the "Kinda Careless Act" ). IG Horowitz's lengthy discussion of the law and the precedents under it shows what virtually every legal expert had said for months prior to Comey's July announcement; that there was no prosecutable case.
I wrote this last June after the IG's rep ...[text shortened]... y, the entire MidYear team or the IG got it wrong and right wingers on the blogosphere got it right.
And who knows, maybe Obama recognized these attributes and felt it qualified her to be Secretary of State.
31 May 19
@no1marauder saidComey always seems to find himself between a rock and a hard place, and his efforts to extricate himself result in being between another rock and hard place.
You should read it. He's an interesting character who's had a lot of noteworthy experiences. He comes off as a bit self-righteous and stubborn but hardly the incompetent fiend that right wingers have decided to paint him AFTER Trump fired him for not killing the investigation.
The point was Comey was hardly an enthusiastic defender of HRC. A related point is that the d ...[text shortened]... idYear team and was found to have been based on the law and not any improper motives by IG Horowitz.
I almost feel sorry for the guy, but I think I'll save my empathy for someone who deserves it.
31 May 19
@lemon-lime said"Doing something wrong" does not equal "violating the criminal provisions of the Espionage Act" would be more what I, the MidYear team and IG Horowitz are telling you.
Sure, I get it. You're telling me Hillary was so horrendously incompetent and stupid she couldn't have possibly known that she was doing anything wrong.
And who knows, maybe Obama recognized these attributes and felt it qualified her to be Secretary of State.
31 May 19
@no1marauder saidI don't rely exclusively on what anyone is telling me.
"Doing something wrong" does not equal "violating the criminal provisions of the Espionage Act" would be more what I, the MidYear team and IG Horowitz are telling you.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about any of this... I'm looking forward to what comes next.
31 May 19
@no1marauder saidFeel the need here to interject that she did violate the espionage act. A fact. You could say “Driving a car does not equal violating the espionage act”. Whew.
"Doing something wrong" does not equal "violating the criminal provisions of the Espionage Act" would be more what I, the MidYear team and IG Horowitz are telling you.
31 May 19
@lemon-lime saidShe knew it was "wrong" but since plenty of other officials have done and are still doing the same, she didn't think it would be a big deal. Clearly she underestimated the gullibility of Americans who bought the absurd notion that a minor breach of security protocol is worth anything more than a slap on the wrist.
Sure, I get it. You're telling me Hillary was so horrendously incompetent and stupid she couldn't have possibly known that she was doing anything wrong.
And who knows, maybe Obama recognized these attributes and felt it qualified her to be Secretary of State.
31 May 19
@averagejoe1 saidThat the right wing blogosphere keeps insisting that something is a "fact", doesn't make it so. The relevant officials who investigated the matter unanimously decided to the contrary and the DOJ IG's Report which reviewed their decision found it to have been made for appropriate legal considerations and not for any improper motives.
Feel the need here to interject that she did violate the espionage act. A fact. You could say “Driving a car does not equal violating the espionage act”. Whew.
31 May 19
@mott-the-hoople said“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
@no1marauder
"AFTER Trump fired him for not killing the investigation. "
another lie
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
Trump was wrong, of course. A little more than a month later, he was directing McGahn to fire Mueller and telling Lewandowski to tell Sessions to "unrecuse" himself, kill the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and clear Trump personally.
31 May 19
@kazetnagorra saidWhich ‘other officials’ kept classified documents on a secret server in their home? Some of the material actually got on the iPad of that horrible Anthony Weiner. Some of y’all’s comments are really hard to chat about
She knew it was "wrong" but since plenty of other officials have done and are still doing the same, she didn't think it would be a big deal. Clearly she underestimated the gullibility of Americans who bought the absurd notion that a minor breach of security protocol is worth anything more than a slap on the wrist.