July 5, 2016

I know you've had a rough day.

You're driving yourself comatose over the Comey post. Comments have spiraled up way over 400.

But, come on, people. You should have been prepared. You've got to take the hard and the soft. Flowers spring up through the concrete:

P1150520

And here's a great fuzzy bee on a spiky, globular flower:

P1150580

Settle in. Calm yourself. There's a long road ahead. You're going to need your wits about you.

ADDED: Look, here are Comey's remarks. The material needed to attack Hillary Clinton is all there. A prosecution would be very controversial AND it would cause many people to step back and allow it to take its course — with due process and the presumption of innocence. That route is closed off, but you have the evidence in front of you and can clearly see what she did:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent....

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information....

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...

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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges....
Clinton deserves intense criticism in the political arena, and I think it will be healthy for the public debate to go forward using the evidence the FBI generated and without the confusing static of a criminal proceeding.

162 comments:

Michael K said...

I have no idea how this will play out in the election.

I fear that any authoritarian impulses of Trump just got a big shot of energy.

The country lost badly.

eric said...

Reuters new poll today, Hillary +13.

So far, this is the progression of Reuters polls.

Hillary +8
Hillary +9
Hillary +10
Hillary +10
Hillary +13

Seriously.

Let's suppose for a moment Trump wins.

Does anyone anywhere ever listen to Reuters polling again?

Jim Dooger said...

Alt house: Come on guys, just bend over and enjoy it.

Sdv1949 said...

Our country died this morning.

Laslo Spatula said...

Renfro Jeffries. Nazi And Proud Of It!

So how much Federal-Approved Corruption do you Need, to then look elsewhere for a Consistent System of Belief?

Are the 'Star People' (you know what I mean by that) upset by this Corruption?

Are the Ones We Call 'Black' (you know what I mean by that) upset by this Corruption?

Are the Ones We Call 'Gay' (you know what I mean by that) upset by this Corruption?

They WANT this Corruption!

This Corruption is Needed for them to advance on something besides their Ability: their Only Way Forward is to Push People Behind!

Look at the Sidewalks, People!

You know what springs up between Concrete? Weeds!

We are letting the Weeds erode our Concrete inch by inch!

Are we so confused as a Society that we won't even kill the Weeds in the Garden?

I'm Renfro Jeffries, Nazi And Proud Of It!

I am Laslo.

Gahrie said...

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Move on.

The same as it ever was.

dreams said...

It wasn't a rough day for me because I expected it but even the liberals on CNBC were saying that they thought Comey was making the case for an indictment and were surprised in the end. Hillary and others might be relieved today but it might ultimately prove to be a rough day for her too.

"Yes, I suppose he owed it to the public, as he indicated. But I wonder if the greater motivation was fear that Clinton would be completely exonerated, that she would skate away free once he passed the FBI decision on to the Justice Department. It's hard to imagine Lynch speaking in public about how Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless" about national security, obvious though that was, or the high probability that the Clinton's server, not to mention her cell phone (!), was hacked by foreign powers. There were also several new revelations, such as the surprising fact that there were actually multiple personal servers, not just one. This was prevarication of a high and deliberate order. (Remember how Hillary claimed Powell and Rice did the same thing? What complete and utter horse hockey.) And that her lawyers never actually read her emails before deleting them, relying on the subject lines (how to keep yourself out of trouble).

The proximity of Comey's statement to the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch meeting on Lynch's plane should also be noted and is potential grist for the mill for historians in the years to come."

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/07/05/did-comey-destroy-hillary-by-exonerating-her/?singlepage=true

Char Char Binks said...

Why am I going to need my wits about me?

Comanche Voter said...

Flowers spring up through concrete; and liars skate.

Hagar said...

I think the speech was mainly about trying to pacify the FBI internally so that individuals would not take it into their heads to go rogue.

This thing kind of reminds me of an old movie, "Pinky," where no one would believe the happy ending, which went 180 degrees off the build-up.

dreams said...

"This thing kind of reminds me of an old movie, "Pinky," where no one would believe the happy ending, which went 180 degrees off the build-up."

There was definitely some cognitive dissonance in what he said and his conclusion.

eric said...

Then there is the new Morning Consult poll, which was +5 Clinton in it's previous polling and now it's +1 Clinton.

Are these polls telling us anything?

John said...

He was an unrepentent Stalinist and this must never be forgotten. But I loved his singing and songwriting. I think this was by Malvina Reynolds, another unrepentant communist.

God Bless the grass
That grows through the crack
They pour the concrete over it
to try to hold it back

But the concrete gets tired
of what it has to do
it breaks and it buckles
and the grass comes through

God bless the grass

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-Ly_dXE_2Q

John Henry

Limited blogger said...

Can someone distill out the good comments from the 450? I ain't going in there.

America's Politico said...

FBI Chief had no choice. House Benghazi committee messed up. State IG did not hurt the Queen. The Media did not do deep dive. Wikileaks were not popular no more. In the end, Comey had no ace. He had to fold. And, the Queen said she wanted AG to remain for next 8-years. Comey re-wrote the laws.

dreams said...

"Can someone distill out the good comments from the 450? I ain't going in there."

Hillary and Comey bad, Trump not as bad.

Steve Uhr said...

Clearly a good day for Trump supporters. An indictment of Hillary would mean a Dem candidate much more likely to defeat Trump than is she.

John said...

Roger Simon has a nice analysis that jibes with mine. (The measure of a man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you)

He thinks Comey may have sunk Hilary in two different ways:

First he told us that all the stuff that Hilary was supposed to have done? Yup, she did it. And here's a couple more things you didn't know about. He pronounced her guilty.

Then he said "Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown" Oops, no. He didn't quite use those words. He said:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

What I hear him saying is "She broke all sorts of laws that anyone else would get in deep shit for. But, you know, Hilary. Not even I can touch her."

A lot of people may hear this and figure it is pitchfork time. Metaphorically, at least.

What about Sanders voters? They don't like Trump but this just proves what Bernie and Trump have been saying about the system being rigged. Suppose Bernie, who is still not actually a Democrat (apparently) decides to throw his weight behind Trump? He and all those berned supporters may decide that Trump is pretty much the opposite of what we want but at least we would (maybe) get an unrigged system.

And if Trump promises them some kind of place at the table? He is already courting them. After the convention he will have a little more freedom to offer something. Perhaps a new cabinet post with Bernie Secretary of Grumpiness?

John Henry

PB said...

Hillary is the weed that keeps coming up through the concrete no matter how many times you pluck or poison it. Ultimately it destroys the foundation on which you depend.

Sebastian said...

"Can someone distill out the good comments from the 450?" Search for "Sebastian," and you're set :).

Anyway, I ain't no ways comatose, lady, but very calm, as we cynical conservatives tend to be. So we're screwed, so what's new?

I'm not surprised by the exoneration, of course, but Comey's key argument still seems weak:

"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." But of course prosecutors bring cases all the time that represent slightly new "combinations" of facts. The "or" indicates that a combination of all types of facts mentioned is not actually required for criminal prosecution, suggesting that just one or more is sufficient. And prosecutors don't just look at "combinations," but also at the scope of conduct--in this case, for example, vaster quantities of top-level communications were exposed than ever before. I also do not understand why the destruction of half the Clinton emails does not ipso facto count as obstruction of justice." In short, even by Comey's own reasoning, the fact pattern would seem to justify a discretionary decision to indict.

whinehouse said...

Ann used to whine about libertarians not supporting civil rights: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/12/heres-post-where-i-take-on-ron-bailey.html
But now she doesn't care about Trump's religious and ethnic bigotry.

Gahrie said...

"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

Somebody has to be first.

pm317 said...

You're driving yourself comatose over the Comey post.

LOL. Hope they didn't see the video of Barack and Hillary from SC today. Obama was positively giddy campaigning for her which made me think 'what does she have on him.'

Roughcoat said...

I don't have any wits about me.

harrogate said...

Limited blogger: they're all pretty much the same.

n.n said...

Once you go pro-choice it's a progressive slope. However, despite their momentum, they still have to overcome the inertia (i.e. "bitter clingers"). There are not enough abortions, refugee crises, and other anti-native policies to realize a dysfunctional convergence. A glimmer of right shines through the extraordinary corruption to pierce the dark fringes of the twilight zone.

The Cracker Unknown said...

Really, did anyone expect a sudden burst of integrity from the Democrats? And the notion that this will somehow work to the Republican's advantage is sheer political junkie fantasy. 46 million people on food stamps. That fact cannot be gain said.

victoria said...

It gives me a giggle to see how apoplectic some of these people are. Duh, didn't you all know that it was going to end up this way. Silly Righties. Silly Trump. Get real


I'm not saying it was the right thing to do (it wasn't) but if the pundits on the right thought it was going to come out any other way, they're as dumb as they appear.

Vicki from Pasadena Still laughing

Gahrie said...

LOL. Hope they didn't see the video of Barack and Hillary from SC today. Obama was positively giddy campaigning for her which made me think 'what does she have on him.'

Hell, she got away with breaking formal rules today, why not break a few informal ones?

exhelodrvr1 said...

You gloaters don't seem to realize that this is about much more than this election.

pm317 said...

@Gahrie, Oh, I am sure he the original Chicago has/had plenty on her.. it is a mutual destruction scenario. I would like to know what happened in 2008.

n.n said...

The Cracker Unknown:

You're right. The welfare industry alone is a multi-trillion dollar racket that launders taxpayer funds for primarily Democrat interests. The abortion industrial complex is good for several hundred billion more. The medical sector seems appeased by the Obamacare status quo. Then there are the anti-native businesses in the civil and human rights sectors. The public unions including teachers unions heavily favor the Democrat establishment and disfavor Posterity. This may well be the last call. I suppose that stop and smell the flowers growing through the cracks is sage advice.

That said, should we follow the progressive slope, history teaches us to keep our heads low and to pray to whatever mortal gods rule the establishment, and, in a liberal society, sacrifice a selected child for good measure.

dreams said...

"Vicki from Pasadena Still laughing"

Its the little old lady from Pasadena. Here is another oldie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7f9hsFrKUY

n.n said...

pm317:

what happened in 2008

The Obama faction beat the Clinton faction. This implies that the former received external (e.g. foreign) support that was used as leverage to marginalize or suppress the latter's dominance in a quid pro quo.

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: Flowers spring up through the concrete:

Except that they don't. Those "cracks" are scores deliberately made to prevent cracking. Dirt gets in them and weeds grow.

Lesson: Keep your cracks clean to prevent seed germination.

Michael K said...

"I think the speech was mainly about trying to pacify the FBI internally so that individuals would not take it into their heads to go rogue."

I think this might be a factor. I'm having breakfast with my FBI agent daughter this weekend. Sh is a lefty but told me two weeks ago, "There is no way I'm voting for Hillary.!"

I wonder if Comey fears a revolt ?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Nice looking plants growing up through the concrete...they look nice but if you don't stop them they will eventually crack and destroy the sidewalk. You focus on the "how pretty" aspect.

Apt metaphor.

dreams said...

"By getting out in front of the Justice Department, the FBI director, speaking publicly in an admittedly unusual fashion, was able to frame the case in a manner that Attorney General Loretta Lynch in all probability never would have.

I think that is correct. In essence, Comey said today that if American voters are dumb enough to elect as president a woman who was “extremely careless” in handling “very sensitive, highly classified information,” so that it is “possible that hostile actors gained access to” her email account, and then lied repeatedly and shamelessly about what she had done, it’s on the voters. I suspect that Comey thinks he has done what he can or should do to blow the whistle on Hillary."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/can-hillary-survive.php

Hagar said...

I think Bill Clinton told Loretta Lynch that his wife was not going to withdraw now whatever the FBI had to say about her.
The way things are in this country today, they cannot get to a trial in the time that is left before the election, never mind before the Democratic convention, so they would be looking at a constitutional crisis, and decided to fold and go all in for Hillary!
Comey may have intended to just give the list of the FBI's conclusions to the DoJ and let them make the announcement, but was told that no, no time for that, Obama is going to North Carolina to campaign with Hillary!, and you will have to go out there and do it.

Hagar said...

And Comey never said that she should not be prosecuted; just that they were not going to recommend it.

Will Cate said...

@n.n
@pm317

Perhaps pm317 meant that little golf date between Barack and Bill after he had already sewn up the nomination.

"Barry, ol' buddy, I know you beat us fair & square in the primaries, but lemme tell ya something. We got a file on you a mile high. We know everything. We know about the cocaine, the down-low boyfriends, everything. You might be the next President, but we have the power to make your life miserable. Because we're the motherfuckin' Clintons. Y'understand what I'm sayin' here? So here's what's gonna happen, assuming you win in November (which you will, trust me). You're gonna make my wife the Secretary of State, for at least your first term. As long as you don't fuck anything up, you'll be reelected in 2012, and she can begin her 2016 campaign.

Ooh... slice. Shoulda used that seven-iron."

dreams said...

I'm was an optimist once upon a time but less so as I've aged having seen what we've become.

"If Mrs. Clinton were a skillful politician, she might be able to throw off the albatross. But she isn’t skillful. She is like Richard Nixon, determined to make a career in a field for which she is not naturally suited. (Only Nixon had more ability.) As the campaign wears on, and as she grows ever more shrill and desperate, and her health increasingly becomes a question mark, I predict that Director Comey’s denunciation of Hillary’s conduct as Secretary of State will be seen as a turning point in an election that Hillary won’t win.

Hey, I am an optimist. Check with me in November and we will see how that prediction turns out."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/can-hillary-survive.php

Quayle said...

Hillary needed a final adjudication and now she won't get one. The cloud will forever be over her head and nothing she does, short of putting herself in front of a jury, will ever change that.

She has been tagged for the rest of her life, presidency or no.

She may think she "won"; but she didn't. This will never go away from her.

John said...

I am reminded of a Will Rogers quote:

There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

Gender aside, I think the next several months will show the administration took the third course of learning today.

Sydney said...

The pens that Freeman Hunt recommended arrived today. I love them! Nice, fine point and smooth handling. They make me want to write by hand again instead of typing.
P.S. What kind of flower is that spikey globe?

tim in vermont said...

We love the smell of Napalm in the morning, It smells like Victory!

dreams said...

"I am reminded of a Will Rogers quote:

There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

Gender aside, I think the next several months will show the administration took the third course of learning today."

Will Rogers supposedly never met a man he didn't like but he never met Hillary.

Static Ping said...

The flowers are pretty.

Bill said...

I suppose there's a lesson here regarding hidden dirt and unexpectedly lovely things emerging from it, but the day is late and I'm pooped and a tad demoralized and will just say I appreciate the photos.

mockturtle said...

I suspect that Comey thinks he has done what he can or should do to blow the whistle on Hillary.

That's the impression I had when I heard his report. Sort of like, 'we know she SHOULD be prosecuted for these egregious offenses but, well, you know how things are...'

pm317 said...

I know you beat us fair & square in the primaries,

LOL, no, no, there was no fair and square about it. It was skullduggery once the powers that be saw that Barack would do -- history repeating itself..Black man/president before woman/president -- a young unknown half black man (who didn't offend this racist society too much with his blackness) was more valuable than a woman who was a Clinton. It was his time.

Sebastian said...

"without the confusing static of a criminal proceeding" Ah, yes, a criminal proceeding would confuse our little American minds. It would be very confusing. What in the world would we do? Thank God Comey saved us from that "static." After all, it's right there in the FBI statutes, "avoid confusing static at all cost."

tim in vermont said...

We are mystified that there are those who think that this has been other than a glorious day for ourselves.

Hillary 2016: Stronger Together.

rhhardin said...

If you can't win the argument, give advice instead.

Birkel said...

Althouse applauds as The Rule of Law is officially dead and it is everybody else who is wrong.

Bull. Shit.

hombre said...

Funny, as I recall, mishandling classified information is malum prohibitum, that is, a strict liability offense.

How cool that the FBI has decided that criminal intent was required. How cool that the FBI, not the prosecutor and not a jury, decides what Hillary and her crooked consorts intended.

If only they were as adept at protecting the country from terrorists as they are at protecting Hillary from prosecution.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

You've got to take the hard and the soft

I suspect that, over the next four years, we will be taking the hard, good and hard.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary's a paragon of honesty

Just look at Comey and Hillary in the above video, as Comey confirms as true every one of Hillary's statements. After all, it's all about the facts losers!

mockturtle said...

Wouldn't she have to get a security clearance as Commander in Chief? Hasn't her behavior precluded that?

Rt1 Rebel said...

Good advice Ann, I've been doing that for 4 months now, as I lost my 33 year career in manufacturing due to a "reduction in workforce." The good news is hopefully, at the age of 54, I have a second career as a postal carrier, I'll find out on Friday.

tim in vermont said...

Sorry losers, put some ice on it!

Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”

Unlike Clinton, he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.

He was also “ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.”




Daily Caller

Achilles said...

The rule of law has been dead for over 7 years. But the DC elite have been hiding it. Today they decided to spit in our face. They will look back today and have themselves to blame.

Jury nullification. Tax Avoidance. People are going to start ignoring mortgages and property taxes. Middle class anarchy. The host is going to start rejecting the parasites.

The best outcome for them will be a Trump ppresidency, a legitimate prosecution by a moral and decent AG, and a deserved prison term for Hillary.

Unknown said...

Fuck the political arena. I want her prosecuted in the judicial arena and thrown in the jail arena.

The rule of law is finished.

buwaya puti said...

There will be weeds springing up through cracks all over, as a consequence of the economic decline. If not as a side effect of widespread political violence.

I swear, it is a curious thing. I come from a place thats had communist guerillas in the hills since WWII. Guerillas as in people who occasionally kill government troops and vice versa. I have dealt with said communists and met the guerrillas. And government troops and paramilitaries and officials and etc.

And these people do not hate each other like you Americans hate other Americans. Those Filipinos who kill each other seem to do so with regret, as an impersonal necessity, and understand and appreciate each others positions, even as they pull the trigger. I get the impression that when the Americans get started it will be personal, savage and gleeful.

Original Mike said...

"Wouldn't she have to get a security clearance as Commander in Chief? Hasn't her behavior precluded that?"

Michael Mukasey said today there's no way someone with her record would be cleared. But of course, she's Hillary. Rules are for the little people.

pm317 said...

there's no way someone with her record would be cleared.

There is no way Obama would have been cleared.

pm317 said...

After 400+ comments, the comatose has entered this thread.

Meade said...

"Those "cracks" are scores deliberately made to prevent cracking."

Not exactly. They're called "control joints" and they don't prevent cracking. In a limited way, they limit cracks to just the individual sections of concrete in which cracks occur. Similar to the way fire stops don't prevent but help to contain and control a wildfire. Or the way a constitution can only limit but not prevent corruption in government.

Original Mike said...

"Clinton deserves intense criticism in the political arena, and I think it will be healthy for the public debate to go forward using the evidence the FBI generated and without the confusing static of a criminal proceeding."

Unfortunately, over half the country doesn't give a shit what she did.

Jeff Teal said...

President automatically get the highest possible security clearance they don't apply for $#it.They can remove anyones too.

Meade said...

Also, those aren't weeds in the photo. They're wildflowers.

Paddy O said...

About that flower...

virgil xenophon said...

hombre/

"If only they were as adept at protecting the country from terrorists as they are at protecting Hillery from prosecution."

Truer words...tragically perhaps THE prime take-away from this entire sickening, sordid affair..

Meeeea said...

Limited Blogger, here are two good comments from the 400+:
TCom said...
Hillary could walk out into the middle of Fifth Avenue and pass out flash drives of Top Secret and SAP intelligence and not lose any voters. People like shiloh are motivated by a desire to destroy America, and the more evil the nominee, the better.

As long as they get to see the jackboots crushing the skulls of decent people, they're happy.

7/5/16, 11:40 AM
Mike said...
Anyone who's sweated an FBI background check (I have) knows the fix is in. Laws don't apply to the elite, of which Mrs. Clinton is obviously a member. The contemptible arrogance of the elites has led to Trump and Brexit in the same year and yet Comey is worrying about interference in an election. Freaking topsy turvy world.

Why is someone like Titus so happy to see a grifter get away with harming this nation? I wouldn't change my opinion if this was Jeb Bush on the hook. I just don't understand progressive's hate for their own country.

tim in vermont said...

Senator Warren gets it

https://twitter.com/senwarren/status/693097354140975104

Achilles said...

buwaya puti said...

"And these people do not hate each other like you Americans hate other Americans. Those Filipinos who kill each other seem to do so with regret, as an impersonal necessity, and understand and appreciate each others positions, even as they pull the trigger. I get the impression that when the Americans get started it will be personal, savage and gleeful."

Most Americans have a deep respect for human life that is missing in most other countries. For example a study of US soldiers in Vietnam found most aimed high or closed their eyes. When 15 people die in a fire or earthquake we freak out here. 1000's die in other countries in similar disasters and the only people who care are... Americans.

But when the damn breaks all hell will break lose. There are several reasons why we win wars, but the one applicable to this conversation is that we in the infantry view winning as more important than living. We put the freedom of our sons and daughters over our own lives. I at least will be very upset when it comes to that and when it starts we will make sure it is another 200 years before we have to do it again.

coupe said...

Having had a Top Secret clearance for 37 years (now retired), I can say 50% of the crap I saw was over-classified.

I hate to say it, but it is well known that we spend billions on over classification.

Congress and the Pentagon both know that.

But as far as CIA information, I think maybe we can see now that the Secretary of State is being given too much information.

I think the Secretary should NOT be briefed at so high a level, and that only her military attache's or whatever they are called should give the Secretary only washed information. Not the raw data.

robother said...

"You're going to need your wits about you." Indeed.

In a country where the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of the ballot box (at least for the Party on the Right Side of History), those in dissent really need their wits. Even if you are of the mind to pledge your lives, your fortune, and your sacred honor to the struggle, don't waste any of them on empty futile gestures.

rcocean said...

Just wait until President Hillary starts issuing executive orders and the Ginsburg-Kagan-Breyer-Wise Latina SCOTUS starts finding stuff in their made up Constitution.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Renfro, the 'weeds' are beautiful ... look with your heart, this time.

The Drill SGT said...

"Wouldn't she have to get a security clearance as Commander in Chief? Hasn't her behavior precluded that?"

The agency you work for adjudicates (grants) your clearance. The FBI can put all the dirt it wants in the raw file, but it's an agency call. She was granted a TS/SCI at State and I know she kept it when she left, on the theory that Kerry might consult with her.

You think Kerry is going to pull her clearance now? Or the clearances of her lying minions?

Even if he did, custom would demand that Obama grant both candidates clearances after their conventions and as the new POTUS, she makes the rules.

If Comey had the nads, he should have held out for pulling her clearance now, and make Obama give it back in 4 weeks.

rcocean said...

And from now on, any American writing about "rule of Law" should be required to put "LOL" after it.

The Drill SGT said...

I think the Secretary should NOT be briefed at so high a level, and that only her military attache's or whatever they are called should give the Secretary only washed information.

Liaison officers

Russell said...

I get the idea that all the ammo is there but her response and from the her media defenders will be 'that's old news.' In fact you can almost set your watch by the coordinated twitterverse response and the inevitable hash tag #OldNews.

Gahrie said...

@Althouse:

Clinton deserves intense criticism in the political arena, and I think it will be healthy for the public debate to go forward using the evidence the FBI generated and without the confusing static of a criminal proceeding.

Ok...I disagree with you, but suppose you are right.....who is going to criticize her in the political arena? The MSM sure won't. Trump and the Republicans will, but they will simply be dismissed as partisan attacks. The Democrats will simply shout "move on" and dismiss any questions.

So where will the debate take place? A courtroom would have been a nice place....

Michael The Magnificent said...

"Clinton deserves intense criticism in the political arena, and I think it will be healthy for the public debate to go forward using the evidence the FBI generated and without the confusing static of a criminal proceeding."

Shorter Althouse: "Just close your eyes and think of England."

I'm sorry, but this is a travesty of justice. And you're excusing a double standard! Any one of us peons would be behind bars for a thousandth of what she's done, and I say this as someone who once had a security clearance.

Comey laid out the facts proving she's guilty, and said in not so many words that it'd be unlikely to be able to seat a jury in D.C. without at least one hard-core Democrat on the jury refusing to convict, regardless of the evidence. The Democratic electorate will turn a blind eye and vote for her anyway, regardless of her guilt. Criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior is just not a disqualifier for Democratic voters. That's the sad reality of it. And so, Democrat politicians will continue criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior, because they can.

Tom said...

I think this is the day we all realized we don't live in a country bound by rule of law. We live in a farce. You say she deserved political criticism - but that assumes anything we do is of any consequence. It doesn't. She'll be president regardless of what the people want. The IRS can attack conservative groups and nothing happens. The ACA can be unconstitutional and the SCOTUS re-words the law.

Can you imagine what happens when a great number of Americans decide that rule of law is dead?

coupe said...

Limited blogger said...Can someone distill out the good comments from the 450? I ain't going in there.

Yes, basically a Cabinet secretary went rouge, and although crimes were committed, they were crimes that could be ignored by the President, and the Secretary was severely counseled but would not have to pay a fine.

50% of the blog is "meh" the other 50% is the coming of the apocalypse.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information....

Althouse,

careless is when you leave the safe unlocked, or mix a SECRET doc in a stack of files and leave it on your desk while u go to lunch. Do that more than once in 6 months and they fire you. This wan't careless, it was GROSS Negligence

The Klondike said...

As much as everybody says he laid out the "facts" he was vague, leading to speculation and claims she lied. Comey did NOT say she sent emails that where MARKED classified, he did say she didn't either. As the head of the FBI, he should have simply given the facts and not the commentary.

Don't assume by this, that I am a Clinton supporter, just observing what actually took place today.

The Drill SGT said...

and the Secretary was severely counseled but would not have to pay a fine.

If I were doing the security counseling, and I have had to do that more than once as well as fire violators, I would report back to my boss, that the miscreant, did not express much remorse, and kept making excuses, and that we ought to at a minimum, start looking for her replacement if he wasn't willing to fire her today.

Because she was going to be a repeat offender. And so were her people.

AprilApple said...

Private server was installed so she could hide her double dealings. She did it to stuff Clinton foundation slush fund coffers.

*test*

Rt1 Rebel said...

Ann is right, folks. Smoke some dope, preferably an opiate, or drink some hard spirits if that's what calms you. Or watch a TV series, if that's your thing. You can't do anything about it anyway. But don't stay up too late, you still need to be at work tomorrow so you can pay your taxes.

furious_a said...

OLD AND BUSTED: Too Big to Fail.
NEW HOTNESS: Too Big to Jail.

mockturtle said...

Klondike, Comey also said: 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.

walter said...

Low info voters will certainly pour over Comey's comments as opposed to thinking VAGINA!

ihasch said...

First prosecution is not closed off. The FBI's recommendation is not binding and an indictment could be an election away.

Second, Comey has committed one of the most blatant violations of public trust in a generation at least. His reasoning was bizarre.

Third, another institution sinks into the ever growing crisis of legitimacy. The Courts. The media. The FBI now. Remarkable.

mockturtle said...

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., said Comey today.

furious_a said...

"She broke all sorts of laws that anyone else would get in deep shit for. But, you know, Hilary. Not even I can touch her."

Only the Electorate can touch Hillary. The political season has gone to far for a recommendation to indict to be seen (or spun) as anything other than an attempt to throw the election. Plus the AG was going to demur an indictment anyway, so recommending one would be a pointless, futile gesture.

walter said...

What was about all the wacking off regarding performance of his department? It's like he's looking out for his career or sumpin..

Michael The Magnificent said...

"This wan't careless, it was GROSS Negligence"

It wasn't even negligent. It was intentional.

Negligence didn't cause a server to be purchased, to have email server software installed, to have that server software configured, to have a domain name purchased and DNS records configured, and then instruct everyone to use her personal email address on a personal server for all official communication. That's a long series of intent, not negligence.

furious_a said...

Director Comey did what he did on the Hillary emails, including re-stating the governing statutes to stress "intent" for the same reason Chief Justice Roberts re-wrote the ACA as a "tax": to throw it back into the political realm for resolution. I'm reluctantly coming to accept that Director Comey was right to do so.

traditionalguy said...

This 2016 Race is a showdown of Cable News Channels. Fox has now gone openly pro Trump 80% of the time. MSNBC has stayed anti Trump, but is only half pro Hillary. They are almost balanced.

But CNN has gone fiercely pro Hillary. Their discussion panels are like gang rapes of the sole Trump spokes person who seldom is allowed to say more that two words before they are talked over and drowned out by a designated attack guest, or are told to shut up and answer my questions by the moderator. It is like Ben Franklin at The Star Chamber.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

Naah, she gets away with it, the Media cheers for her, and you will feel happy when you give her your vote, Professor.

furious_a said...

Normally I'd say that whatever comes after the "but/although" is the only part of the statement that matters, but *cough* normally there is not quite so extensive and explicit a bill of particulars before the "but/although". @Reason did a nice mashup of Hillary claims vs. FBI findings that is oppo research GOLD.

I think this was Director Comey airing Hillary's dirty email laundry in a forum that reached everyone all at once while foreclosing the opportunity to redact in a report released through a clearly compromised AG's office that was never under any circumstances going to accept a recommendation to indict.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Comey did NOT say she sent emails that where MARKED classified

I, once upon a time, produced classified documents. I assure you that at no time during my tenure was there a government bureaucrat standing over my shoulder with a big rubber stamp marked "CLASSIFIED" to stamp the documents as I produced them.

And yet, they were born classified. Had I walked out the locked door with so much as a page from one of those documents, intentionally or accidentally, I would have seen the inside of Leavenworth.

But then, I'm not a Democrat running for political office, where, according to our law professor host, dispensation is to be granted.

If it weren't for double-standards, leftists wouldn't have any standards at all.

Birkel said...

All of the necessary know-how in America lies with her middle class. That middle class is on notice that it is despised by those above and those below.

I am hoping Atlas Shrugs instead of Atlas Fights Back. The cities will suffer if all we red neck country folks decide to Shrug.

And old people like Althouse will suffer most.

TOF said...

I wonder who among the readership are old enough to remember Richard Nixon and Watergate. I am. I also am intimately familiar with the handling of classified material. Handling classified the way Hillary et al did would be the kiss of death to any high ambitions; just consider General David Petraeus. Richard Nixon's shenanigans are no worse than Hillary's -- except for the fact that Democrats were then leading the charge.

Xmas said...

The law around the handling of classified documents and information does not require "Intent". While Comey said the FBI wouldn't recommend charges, that doesn't mean the Attorney General couldn't press charges on the "Gross Negligence" part of the law. While Comey did cut the legs out from any prosecutor that decides to press charges, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. As you said, there was plenty of suggestions in Comey's statement that negligence did happen.

I'm wondering if Comey is pulling a Pontius Pilate here.

KB said...

There was one scandal, Hillary broke the law. Now there should be two, because of the clear political fix.

My wife is probably the purest bellwether in politics. Her reaction was essentially "are you surprised?"

The average american doesn't expect better of our government and actually expects it to fail us in order to benefit the political elite. When people stop trusting government institutions, what follows will not be pretty when hard times hit and hard times will come as they always do.

LilyBart said...

Didn't you hear? The Rule of Law is dead. And Comey helpfully added that they reserve the right to prosecute someone else for the same deeds.

So, forgive me if I don't give a damn about any flowers growing up through cracks in the sidewalk when there are foundational cracks in my governments.

LilyBart said...

Whitest. Privilege. Ever. (seen on twitter)

Mike said...

Thank you for the pull quote, Meeeeeeea.

Real American said...

Next time I commit a felony, I'll gladly accept intense criticism in the political arena as my punishment. Oh right, that's not really punishment, is it?

Mike said...

The Klondike said: As much as everybody says he laid out the "facts" he was vague, leading to speculation and claims she lied. Comey did NOT say she sent emails that where MARKED classified, he did say she didn't either.

I listened closely but have not consulted a transcript but I heard him say she DEFINITELY sent and received material that was marked classified at the time she sent and received it. This was a direct contradiction to her last evasive formulation about material being unmarked. Hillary wants us to be confused as to what was marked and unmarked, because she's so pleased at how muddy the waters are regarding "born classified" and "an old lady doing email" -- it's all just so funny! Yeah, and now old Unindicted Co-conspirator #2 can have her sydneys and minions go out and muddy the waters even more until we can't tell "gross negligence" from "most qualified ever"!

Prosecutorial Indiscretion said...


The Lonesome Death of the Rule of Law
(with profound apologies to Bob Dylan and Donald Trump)

Hillary Clinton sent classified e-mails
Through a server she hid in a Westchester bathroom
Though Huma suggested she get a State address
Ms. Hillary wanted a more opaque process
So FOIA requests couldn't stop her election
By reporting the truth of her tenure in office
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain't the time for your tears

The amateur server protected her interests
Concealing her messages public and private
Her fatal inaction regarding Benghazi
Her husband's Lolita-betokened erections
And Putin, Khamenei, and Kim Jong Un smiled
At all of the secrets they pulled from the ether
Thanks to tech support issues her people mishandled
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain't the time for your tears

Then the Blackberry photograph tipped off opponents
Who knew what devices the government sanctioned
It looked like deliberate lawless behavior
And courts were dismayed at the hint of obstruction
So Judicial Watch came with the backing of Congress
And had Mr. Jim Comey investigate charges
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain't the time for your tears

Lady Loretta ran the Justice Department
A place where integrity once drove decisions
Where young lawyers sacrificed vast sums of money
To do something useful and right and upstanding
But now it's all hacks and political creatures
Where partisans saturate every division
And rob corporations to bolster their patrons
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain't the time for your tears

William J. Clinton met with Lady Loretta
On a tarmac golf outing in hot Arizona
He strolled to her plane with a sure proposition
Though he much preferred planes that were staffed by Jeff Epstein
He set it all out in about thirty minutes
I have a foundation worth billions of dollars
With glamorous donors and lucrative contacts
And there's always room for experienced counsel
Who'd bask in the media's bright adulation
Or if you'd prefer a more permanent option
We'll make you a judge and be sure they confirm you
And oh by the way, if you don't, we will burn you
But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Take the rag away from your face
Now ain't the time for your tears

And not too long after that Mr. Jim Comey
Stood and explained about reasonable actors
That no outside influence weighed on his conscience
He talked about thousands of undisclosed emails
And how through great effort, the FBI found 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom
Spoke of the woman who lied out of habit
'Bout acts that for others would lead to conviction
And scolding her careless and foolish decisions
He said her intent would preclude prosecution
So that afternoon down in North Carolina
The President gave her the use of his lectern
And Hillary smirked because now it's apparent
That in a few months she will be our next President
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears

Dan said...

At least we can be pretty sure that Comey's family is no longer being held hostage.

Mark Flacy said...

"In the political arena"

I see that you have never, ever, ever been close enough to *smell* a security clearance, much less to have one.

You are as a child. You have no idea of which you speak.

Were I had done as Hillary had done (when I were a mere O3 in the US Army, mind you), I would be in jail. To this day, when my days as an O3 ended in 1992.

Are there no oaths taken when sworn in as as a senior official of the United States? Are they meaningless?

eric said...

Blogger The Klondike said...
As much as everybody says he laid out the "facts" he was vague, leading to speculation and claims she lied. Comey did NOT say she sent emails that where MARKED classified, he did say she didn't either. As the head of the FBI, he should have simply given the facts and not the commentary.

Don't assume by this, that I am a Clinton supporter, just observing what actually took place today.


Can you tell me how a Top Secret Email is marked?

How does one send a Top Secret Email and mark it?

Before you answer, please look into what a SCIF is.

Thanks.

cubanbob said...

Interesting that Comey kept silent about the bureau's investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

Terry said...

If you are ever tempted to believe that the elites of the MSM are other than overpaid, over credentialed imbeciles, remember Evelyn Waugh!
On February 25, 2016, Time magazine put Evelyn Waugh as #97 of the most read female authors in college classes: http://time.com/4234719/college-textbooks-female-writers/
Matt Yglesias is the son of a novelist and the grandson of novelists. He is the stereotype of an elite: private school in NY when he was young, philosophy degree from Harvard. After Time's debacle on Waugh, he wrote:
"Confession time: Until today I thought Evelyn Waugh was a woman, because his name is “Evelyn” and that is typically a woman’s name."
Waugh is not Henry James. Waugh wrote the Sword of Honor Trilogy. The Sword of Honor is about an English Officer in the Mediterranean during WW2. Waugh says in the introduction that it is about him. Waugh wrote a bit about English public school homosexualism, as sub text, in Brideshead Revisited, but it was clearly written by a male. The women in all of Waugh's stories are silly cardboard cutouts. They have no internal lives. The only interesting characters are men, the only interesting relationships are between men. In Brideshead Revisited, Waugh's avatar, Charles Ryder, does not even have a mother. His only family relationship is with with a distant father. All of Ryder's important relationships are with men. The female figures are like trophies or house cats. If you read a paragraph or two of Waugh you know you are reading an author as male centered as as Hemingway. More so, maybe. At least Hemingway treated women as three dimensional human beings.
Our elites are idiots.

J. Farmer said...

@Ann Althouse:

Hey Ann,

Remember when you got the Swiss school lunch pork story all wrong and tried to chastise me for it? I didn't get an apology, and you're readers didn't get a retraction. Perhaps you and Ms. Greenhouse suffer from the same affliction: unbridled narcissism.

Sammy Finkelman said...

It's not that , at least in my case, I expected that charges would broght, athough I think others were affected by the leaks/ It is not even that I thought charges should be brought on that kind of basis (although I also think Petraeus shouldn;t have bene charged. I think theer are much more serious charges aaginst Hillary Clinton possible.

Bt I didn't expect that FBI Director Comey would make a public display of not charging her, and with such great politically motivated timing.

Comey did bot exonerate Hillary Clinton (which might have justified a public pronouncement) He announced he was, or that any prosecutor would, exercise prosecutorial discretion. Since when is it the job of the FBI to exercise prosecutorial discretion, rather than of people in the DOJ. At most, the FBI should have made no recommendation at all as to whether or not charges should actually be filed.

I expected that the FBI recommendation would remain secret. I thought it might be not to prosecute on the grounds that it would influence an election or maybe on the grounds of not enough evidence. I thought that probably nothing would be announced - it's just that nothing would happen until at least after the election.

The grounds for this recommendation are curious. And he did not explain where the idea to make a public announcement orignated. And while he said what he was going to say had not been told to people at DOJ, this is probably not true for the bare fact that it would be not to prosecute - because if it was to prosecute, but there was a possibility that she would not be prosecuted, it would be considered unethical to go into the charges. It also, a matter of fact, would robably be considered unethical to describe what she did in any negative way - unless she consented - so this all must have been worked out with Hillary Clinton's lawyers. Who must have been told, who in turn told Hillary who in turn told Obama who in turn told Attorney general Lynch ( some lower ranking officials than the president and the Attorney egeneral might have bene the one told instead)

Matthew Sablan said...

Man. I want to use that argument.

"Hey, guys, I know I did [incredibly bad thing] and you have the emails where I told people to [do incredibly bad thing], but instead of facing REAL consequences, how about we just let me suffer political consequences -- well, maybe political consequences. Maybe!"

The decision was a terrible one, and I see no point defending it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I fear that any authoritarian impulses of Trump just got a big shot of energy."

-- But at least the government will work to check Trump compared to Clinton. It has been made clear: Even with an email with classified material from Clinton to someone without a clearance, the government is unable to demonstrate that Clinton wanted to send an email with classified material to someone without a clearance.

With over a hundred literal smoking guns, the government refused to do anything.

At least with Trump, you know a good majority of the career bureaucrats will be salivating to take him down.

james conrad said...


"I know you've had a rough day."

Actually, i had a pretty good day although, it's 95+ here with a lot of humidity. Comey just didn't think he could win in court going up against the best lawyers money can buy with the facts he had in this case. I don't think it's a big surprise that most people that can't afford multi-million dollar legal fees would have been charged and probably copped to a plea.
How this will play out politically i have no clue but, i don't see how this can possibly help her.

Matthew Sablan said...

By the way: There won't be a public debate. All the other side is going to do is say: "Yeah, but they didn't charge her."

All the evidence doesn't amount to much when, despite you being able to prove she committed multiple crimes with what was said, the other side can just say: "Yeah, but it didn't happen, so you're wrong."

This was a very effective way to -shut off debate-, not encourage it. You can see it already on the Internet with people who liked the rule of law and equal treatment under it being referred to as deadenders.

Bruce Hayden said...

Yeh, President doesn't need a security clearance. But I think the VP does. Cheney had the power to declassify anything he wanted, but I doubt that Biden does. The interesting/funny thing about the Clintons getting to the White House was apparently a lot of their staff weren't getting the required clearances to do their jobs because of previous, and maybe even present, drug use. Mostly cocaine, if I remember correctly.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

Comey described how she is guilty. He did not describe how he (correctly) understands that, as noted by Michael the Magnificent, there is not a jury in D.C. that will convict her. While a hung jury is more likely, an acquittal would be even more damaging to the country. It would be O.J. on steroids.
What Comey did not and can not afford to consider is what buwaya puti suggested- that once it breaks down, it will be "personal, savage and gleeful." There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass. It will not be started by us. It will be started by a failure of the Democratic system- a widespread breakdown of the food stamp machinery, or the culmination of the Ferguson effect. Then, as Achilles stated, the damn (sic, but so appropriate) will break and all hell will break loose.
Jim Morrison wrote, "You got the guns, but we got the numbers." We have both.

Brando said...

The whole thing might help the GOP this year as it gives people cause for outrage against the Clintons (who seem always to get away with their crap) but it's not a good result for the rule of law. We're just continuing to normalize this idea that rules are only for the little people.

Hillary still has not presented any legit reason she had to set up the private servers. The closest thing to a "defense" of this I've seen was from Paul Waldman who said "she probably didn't want all her correspondence FOIA'd to death by political enemies who would pick over every little thing" which of course is no defense. (It is also not plausible--Hillary knows most e-mails sent or received by her also would show up in other govt employees' e-mails which could also be FOIA'd, so why would she go through so much trouble just to take her own off line? The only reason was she had something to hide).

And now Republicans have decided that the best person to make the argument that Hillary is untrustworthy and sleazy is a guy who most people also find incredibly untrustworthy and sleazy. Sort of like the best person to argue against Obamacare was the guy who brought us Romneycare. The GOP just can't help itself from constantly bungling presidential elections, even when the Dems try to make it easy for them.

tim in vermont said...

In theory, Althouse is right. This should be handled politically. Not handling politically is just putting off the inevitable.

But what is most disturbing is that we all knew that this experiment in equality before the law, and of being a nation of laws, not of med, could not last forever. My default position has always been let's keep this unique moment in human history alive as long as possible. Now it's dead.

Once we lost an independent press, it was all over but the shouting. Then the Democrats decided that we needed a new electorate, more accepting of the ways in which they wanted to rule, so they began their long-term project of engineering a new one. "Any opposed? Racist!" So no, I have no confidence in a political solution to this that will keep the rule of law and equality before the law alive.

But hey! Love wins! That's what passes for legal analysis. The 800th anniversary of The Magna Carta passes with Comey, Clinton, and Obama dancing on its grave.

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.


At the time it was written, it was pretty radical stuff, and we are headed back that way, to where these rights will once again seem radical, to trial by combat, perhaps a more sophisticated combat, but combat all the same.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, yes I do get what Comey did. He laid out the case for all to see -- or at least those who want to see. But then he says "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the case I think he's saying "no prosecutor working in Loretta Lynch's DOJ who wants to hang onto his job,"

Tell me something, Professor. When you voted the way you voted in 2008 was it because you could see, as a law professor, that the U.S. was already on track towards a two-tiered legal system? Or was it because you felt that such a system was desirable?

Bay Area Guy said...

A few thoughts in no particular order:

1. I always thought Hillary was a formidable candidate and never thought Hillary would be indicted. Even if Comey and the FBI recommended charges, the Lynch DOJ would never have charged her.

2. AA writes: "Settle in. Calm yourself. There's a long road ahead. You're going to need your wits about you."

- I think this is correct. Politically, I do think an indictment would have wrecked Hillary's chances at the White House, but, who knows, maybe Biden as late-inning substitute would have still carried the Dems to victory.

3. Hillary was damaged by Comey's revelations. She was shown to be a liar about several aspects of her private server and her careless dissemination of classified information. (See excellent video by Reason)

http://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc

4. Trump can win. But he needs GOP skeptics to consolidate around him and offer support. That is what matters, not the many distractions. Trump isn't the perfect candidate, but neither was Romney. Trump has many flaws. But he is in a better position than anyone else to defeat Hillary, which is of paramount importance.

MayBee said...

I think Comey did this on the day Obama was campaigning with Hillary to send the message: I can't indict her because the President of the United States supports her. But she should be indicted.

And Obama and Hillary went out, gave Hillary the podium with the POTUS seal on it, and pretended nothing had happened.
Will they get away with that?

MayBee said...

Althouse said: " and I think it will be healthy for the public debate to go forward using the evidence the FBI generated and without the confusing static of a criminal proceeding."

Yes, but what I fear is that the debate won't go forward. Obama and Hillary can pretend nothing happened, and so the public debate won't happen.

Hillary Rosen was on CNN yesterday saying Comey had declared Hillary was honest. And that she'd already admitted it was a mistake. Over. Done. Lesson learned. Let's move on. I'm afraid this is what we will see happen, while the media treats Trump's star shape as an indication he's unfit for the presidency.

David Begley said...

The REAL story is Williams & Connolly had lawyers without security clearance read every single email. The computer search by key words is a cover story. The really bad stuff about bribes were deleted. The hard drives were then erased in such a fashion that even the FBI couldn't recover the emails. Rosemary Woods lives!

tim in vermont said...

Muddy the waters minions! Ask not why there were no classification markers! Don't use the following quote ever:

If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure - Hillary Clinton

Just repeat the mantra that they were not marked secure, don't ask why Top Secret information had its markings removed, whatever you do.

Above all, please refer to HillaryClinton.com for the 'Facts" about this case! For example:

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Mick said...

Except for the the FACT "law prof" (clearly a misnomer, those kids are being defrauded by the Ivory Tower of Academia) that the violation of 18 US Code S. 793 is not a "political question". It is JUDICIAL, and an investigative body of the Judicial branch determined and SAID that the law was violated.

It doesn't matter whether ANY of the emails contained "classified" info (although the FBI says that some did), only that they be "related to the national defense." The standard for prosecution in the statute is "KNOWINGLY" which means she intended to, which obviously she "knowingly" did-- she set up a private server, so the "intent" aspect is BS.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Oh I know this is all untoward and "not civil", and clearly too harsh for the genteel and "civil" attitudes of the "law prof" and her colleagues in the Ivory Tower, but a time is coming for burning down the halls of tyranny, guillotines rolled, and gallows put to use, and that is decidedly "not civil."

This Republic died when the Usurper Hussein Obama, an illegal and unknown foreign Muslim was forced upon the citizens of the US without even being sworn in. When there is no legal executor of the laws, then there is no law, and no Republic, and the law is only what the illegitimate members of the Usurped government say it is. That is what happened (and has been happening) right before your eyes, and was participated in by the said Usurper who came to Clinton's side, gave her the Presidential seal and "legitimized" the whole farce.

They don't care anymore, and are pissing in our face. A time is coming when the tree will be watered.

tim in vermont said...

The hard drives were then erased in such a fashion that even the FBI couldn't recover the emails. Rosemary Woods lives!

David, sorry, but would take an incredible amount of work, and probably require a Turing level genius to oversee it. It is only a little less likely than time going backwards for a second.

What is funny though is that there are ways to wipe the "slack areas" of a drive clean so that even the FBI can't get to it, using cheap, over the counter, software. But for some reason these security experts who were "protecting" her server, didn't know about them.

tim in vermont said...

On second thought David, if the were going to erase the "really bad stuff" first, wipe the "slack areas" (I have never heard them called that, but whatever) then erase the less damning stuff, I suppose that is possible, I can't imagine why they would allow the FBI to prove a lesser felony to hide a greater felony. Why not just hide all of the felonies?

SDN said...

Perhaps Professor Althouse can comment on this strategy.

The next step is for Judicial Watch to launch a legal action on behalf of EVERYONE indicted or convicted of mishandling classified documents demanding that the government be required to prove the "specific intent" Comey just added to the law instead of the "negligence" standard actually contained in the law and used to mislead the jury.

Rusty said...

"Can you imagine what happens when a great number of Americans decide that rule of law is dead?"

Yes, I can. And it won't be pretty.

tim in vermont said...

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.
- HillaryClinton.com

That story is no longer operative, Hillary. But I am sure it will take a while to scrub all of the lies that have been proven off of your website.


We all know that the only time a Clinton ever has lied are the times it has been proven under the law. They have never ever lied any other time.

tim in vermont said...

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "marked" is, and "information."

I mean, the information itself, if not the specific text, was classified and marked as such before it got into the Clinton vortex of politics, graft, and war mongering.

damikesc said...

The one problem is now, should a Republican win the WH, I want that person to PUNISH the Democrats. Make them squeal and bleed.

Just fire every single person in the government. When the SCOTUS says you cannot do that, ignore them and re-hire different people anyway. They won't be impeached for doing so. Just terminate all of them and veto any budget with any type of compensation for the current employees.

Hell, just kill their pensions while you're at it. Laws are for little people.

How cool that the FBI has decided that criminal intent was required.

Even more amazing that setting up your own private email server doesn't qualify as intent.


-- But at least the government will work to check Trump compared to Clinton. It has been made clear: Even with an email with classified material from Clinton to someone without a clearance, the government is unable to demonstrate that Clinton wanted to send an email with classified material to someone without a clearance.


That's why I say fire all of the government employees and tell the courts to fuck off. If Congress tries to fund compensation for the fired employees, veto the budget. Shut the government down if you have to. Ignore the SCOTUS if they try to intervene. Then re-hire people you want. Bring back the spoils system.

Law is not real any more. It is irrelevant. That might suck for law professors, but that is the world law professors brought us to.

Then deport all of the aliens. Again, law is not real. You can easily ignore it.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Even more amazing that setting up your own private email server doesn't qualify as intent.

That is obvious. It was not intent to mishandle classified information. It was intent to mishandle all of her e-mail in violation of establoshed procedures and possibly the Federal Records Act. The classified information just went along for the ride.

She wasn't concentrating on that, and, as a matter of fact, there were technical obstacles to sending most classified information to her server. In fact, she actually complained about that - or at least why some thing was marked classified.

Unknown said...

Birkel said...
Althouse applauds as The Rule of Law is officially dead and it is everybody else who is wrong.

Bull. Shit.
7/5/16, 9:34 PM


Not at all, Birkel. Why do you think she is retiring? Her profession has just been made obsolete. I guess she thinks she's not going to live to see it all come crashing down.

Donatello Nobody said...

Tim in Vermont (5:32am) summed it up perfectly.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The one thing we haven't heard from Hillary Clinton - and it is no accident that we haven't heard it -- is any sort of a campaign promise to hew more to established and expected procedures in keeping and archiving records.

Sammy Finkelman said...

David Begley said...7/6/16, 5:55 AM

The computer search by key words is a cover story. The really bad stuff about bribes were deleted.

I think it's more likely the search terms were reverse engineered so as not to come up with evidence of corruption or bribery.

However, I would not exclude that, on top of that, and/or when they couldn't succesfully miss some e-mail they wanted to miss, a few very sensitive e-mails might have been pre-deleted. And they could also have been deleted in 2013, which would have been a time to remove anything that anybody remembered as being legally or politically extremely damaging.

Even if the FBI eventually recovered one or more of them from an old server's e-mail fragments in the “slack”—space, the FBI agents who examined it might not have been in a position to understand what some very damaging e-mail meant, or they might not have constituted admissible or reliable evidence in court because some parts of the e-mail was missing.

Ken MacDonald said...

I think it will be healthy for the public debate to go forward using the evidence the FBI generated and without the confusing static of a criminal proceeding.

FYI to nugget headed Althouse: being "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and sending 52-emails that were "determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received" with "[e]ight of those chains contain[ing] information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent" is a crime. This evidence doesn't point to "potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information", it points to actual "violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information".

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

"They don't care anymore, and are pissing in our face. A time is coming when the tree will be watered."

So Mick will piss on the tree.

damikesc said...

The one thing we haven't heard from Hillary Clinton - and it is no accident that we haven't heard it -- is any sort of a campaign promise to hew more to established and expected procedures in keeping and archiving records.

Why would she? She skated on this. I will give even less of a chance of a President being indicted.

What we need to have now is for every single Republican to do the same. No more government servers for any info. Ever.

FOIA is dead anyway.

robother said...

"we are headed back that way, to where these [Magna Carta] rights will once again seem radical, to trial by combat, perhaps a more sophisticated combat, but combat all the same."

tim in vermont has it right. Althouse's suggestion that non-prosecution of Hillary clears the way for the general electorate to judge the issue, is replacing the rule of law with a trial by combat that is equally arbitrary in determining justice as sending 2 armored men into a ring.

Unknown said...

It's amazing that a law professor does not assess whether Comey was correct in claiming no reasonable prosecutor would have brought charges; where's the analysis of the relevant statutes against the conduct established by the FBI? Instead we get approval that the Presidential race goes on without, "the confusing static of a criminal proceeding". So according to this law prof, the law is "confusing static".

Unknown said...

Althouse for Supreme Court.

Saint Croix said...

Powerful editorial from Donald Trump's son-in-law.

I am a big fan of Observer.com and its publisher, Jared Kushner.

The Observer also published Dana Schwartz's attack on Trump. I am kind of amazed that the Observer published her open letter. The commitment to free speech is obvious. Not just free speech vis-a-vis the government, but free speech vis-a-vis the owners of the company.

Very impressed, both with the publishing of her attack, and his response.

Ken Mitchell said...

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...."

In terms of classified material, "intent" is a meaningless concept. Actions are the ONLY thing that counts. She DID mishandle classified information, and that's a crime in and of itself. If you inadvertently lose a classified document, because you left it on the desk when you should have put it in your safe, that's a crime. MOST people who do minor stuff like that get court-martialled, or lose their security clearances, or get fired. But Hillary is above the law, and the normal rules that applied to ME, don't apply to HER.

Nichevo said...

Unknown said...
Althouse for Supreme Court.
7/6/16, 2:51 PM



That's funny on so many levels.