July 5, 2016

"FBI recommends no charges against Clinton in email probe."

Politico reports that Comey said:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges."
Drudge presents it this way:
How do you feel about this? I'm relieved. I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along.

483 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 483   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

but can you tell us exactly where you would draw the line?

It's simple. Is the affected politician a Democrat? You can't prosecute members of the ruling class, pleb.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Honest question: what would Hillary have had to do to meet a standard of "gross negligence" here?"

-- Be Republican.

bagoh20 said...

The host's attitude is what has drained this nation of its backbone and principles. That's our democracy with the fatal infection we were warned about at it's inception. Citizens with that thinking are like leaves of grass under the boots of corruption. You stand up straight and righteous right up until the moment the boot arrives with the tiniest pressure when you bend prostate only to stand back up with all that righteous and principled strength again immediately after the boot has passed by.

If we end up some day with a despot in charge destroying citizen rights wholesale from either the right or the left, it will be because of this unprincipled retreat over and over.

Yancey Ward said...

I will speak up in Ms. Althouse's defense- her position is reasonable, even if bitter to the tongue. It can be properly stated that it is The People's responsibility to thwart Clinton's ascent in November. If we are unable to do that, knowing now that she has repeatedly lied about this issue, then we deserve the consequences. Like DKWalser wrote above, had Clinton told the truth a year ago, she likely wouldn't have been the nominee- even the Unknowns and Shilohs of the Democratic Party would have had the good sense to choose a different nominee- she has forced us to make this decision. I hope we make the right one, but if we don't, we shouldn't lament Comey's decision in this matter- it was still up to the voters in the end.

Jupiter said...

Boy, we really bought into that "Comey has Integrity!" bullshit, didn't we?

How did we allow ourselves to forget that Hoover's FBI has always been rotten to the core?

tim in vermont said...

Why would anybody hate Hillary? Where would it come from shiloh? I can't figure it out. She has lived as pure a life, dedicated selflessly to the betterment of mankind! If she has made any mistakes, it is only out of her love of humanity!

Stronger Together! FBI, Justice Dept, IRS!

There is no person more deserving of the presidency than Hillary, sweet Hillary. Mother to us all!

Anonymous 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.

David Begley said...

Hillary now has sovereign immunity. Forever. Unchecked power.

Harold said...

So, it's OK to skew with the electoral process when it's this far along as long as it's a Republican (Ytump U), but not OK if it's a Democrat (Multiple violations of security laws).

Let's not forget Ted Stevens and other Republicans ultimatel cleared of bogus charges. And Palin driven out of office by thousands of bogus ethics charges.

But hey, Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife is too far along in the process of being coronated, so we must end it. The law must be honored and obeyed only when it comes to peasants and Republicans.

tim in vermont said...

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.


Don't forget me man! I have been won over! The thought of Hillary's power gives me a tingle down my leg!

Stronger Together!

Anonymous said...

"It can be properly stated that it is The People's responsibility to thwart Clinton's ascent in November."

Those of us in the know always knew that the left will do ANYTHING to hold on to power, and their corruption knows no depths to which they will not sink. That's why we liked Trump from the beginning, because we knew it would take someone as brash as him to even have a chance at ripping the cancer out.

Do the rest of you see it yet? Do you fully understand how dire the situation is, how close we are to the brink? We need a George Patton to even stand a fighting chance in this existential battle.

tim in vermont said...

If you are a hillbilly Republican, here is the sanction:

be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Not for us Democrats! Not unless we get in the way of the DNC and those who fund it and pull its levers!

Losers!

Stronger together!

Ron Nelson said...

If only Bernie Madoff had run for President things would have been a lot different.

shiloh said...

There is no person more deserving of the presidency than Hillary, sweet Hillary. Mother to us all!

From your keyboard to god's magnificence ~ praise the lord!

Indeed, the day Hillary was conceived was much like the Immaculate Conception!

Thanks be to god ...

mccullough said...

Comey has cloistered integrity. When it's a difficult decision for him personally, he caves. When it comes to investigating low level bullshit like steroids in baseball, he's a beacon of integrity.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Perhaps the law, hardly the stuff of political process, you know, is really meant to be played only in the halls of academe like a game of Go or chess, where it's delightful fripperies won't interfere with important matters like political campaigns.

Lance said...

"I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along."

Or, to put it another way, "I'm glad politics have overridden a criminal law proceeding."

buwaya said...

"If only Bernie Madoff had run for President"

Bernie Madoff is running things. Or his smarter counterparts anyway.

gadfly said...

In the immortal words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is." Servergate will be added to the historic list of scams that Hillary has beaten back.

dreams said...

Considering we get Bubba along with Hillary, its like getting two crooks for the price of one which isn't good for us, kind of like upsizing at McDonalds.

Beth Donovan said...

Of course you are relieved, Ann. You voted for Obama.

dreams said...

If your going enter into a life of crime, politics is the most rewarding and risk free.

Laslo Spatula said...

Hillary's sense of relief now has probably pushed impending stroke back a month.

I am Laslo.

tim in vermont said...

Indeed, the day Hillary was conceived was much like the Immaculate Conception!

Amen brother in arms, now let's get to beating down these hillbillies!

Static Ping said...

Rule of Law is dead.

I suppose that can be a relief.

Anonymous said...

"I'm glad Democrats have overridden a criminal law proceeding."

Fixed that for you, Lance.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary's sense of relief now has probably pushed impending stroke back a month.

Chuck Todd, bless his soul, showed he was one of us by his display of relief! I am so happy he puts what is good for American above the ratings bonanza that would have followed a recommendation to prosecute!

True Americans like Chuck are thin on the ground, but plentiful in the news media, praise be to God!

tim in vermont said...

The sublime glory of the power that is Hillary has changed my heart!

Stronger Together! FBI, Justice Dept, IRS!

shiloh said...

Amen brother in arms, now let's get to beating down these hillbillies!

As always brother, you can take of my light work er be our leader battling the feeble con resistance ...

Darrell said...

Disband the FBI now. Take their guns and send them to the TSA and litter patrol.

The Drill SGT said...

For those like our hostess, who may say, "At this point, what difference does it make?". Hillary is only one person, even as President, she'll be surrounded by others and insulated from doing stupid $hit like this again. pause a second. She was surrounded at State by smart people, who facilitaed this stupid $hit and THEY ALL GOT AWAY WITH IT and every one of them will get a promotion in the Rodham WH. What message do you think sends to all the other Democrats in the Federal Government? Lerner 2.0's? Excess in the service to the State is a virtue to be rewarded. There are crime crimes and GOP crimes, there are no Democrat crimes, just like there is no Democrat Racism.

tim in vermont said...

You shoot the wounded, shiloh, or bayonet them, your choice.

Why would I use email with all of these investigations... can you imagine!

She is so much smarter than these hillbilly cons!

Hagar said...

I think that what we have just seen is the result of a powerplay.
Bill Clinton told Loretta Lynch his wife was not going to withdraw even if she was indicted and Obama announced he was taking Hillary! along on Air Force One to help her campaign for election.
The FBI and DoJ considered their options and concluded the results of an indictment was just too awful to be contemplated.
So Comey was sent out there to state what we just heard.

But that does not mean it is over. This will be a stinking mess developing explosive gases that Hillary! will carry around with her wherever she goes forever.

dreams said...

And for those with larceny in their hearts but lack sufficient personal skills to make it as a politician, they should be good enough for government work and I don't think the work is very hard either.

tim in vermont said...

Certified bad intent free!

Stronger Together.

Static Ping said...

Assuming Hillary wins, it will be wonderful to have a President that can be easily blackmailed by any power with a rudimentary hacking department. Probably eliminates Tuvalu, Bhutan, Rwanda, maybe the Vatican....

tim in vermont said...

But that does not mean it is over. This will be a stinking mess developing explosive gases that Hillary! will carry around with her wherever she goes forever.

Nobody who matters gives a shit. George Washington is rotted away to bones and mold, my friend. This is what power feels like. Join us, you don't know the power of the dark side!

Stronger Together.

FBI says Hillary is a straight arrow, so Trump should shut his stupid yap!

Hagar said...

Plus remember Nixon and The Cigarette Smoking Man. There will be more to come.

tim in vermont said...

Shut up Static Ping. Loser! Hillbilly!

Stronger Together FBI, Justice Department, IRS.

bagoh20 said...

The FBI says she didn't intentionally break the law. Is there anyone on any side of this who thinks she did this by accident? Really? Of course not. That's the lie. That's the corruption. She knew when she set it up that it would likely lead to problems for her, but she knew the fix would be there. She never doubted it, or she would have avoided it in the first place. She knew that corruption was there for her. Didn't we all?

Darrell said...

Can we try, convict, and jail Obama for letting this happen? He ain't running again.

shiloh said...

Since Althouse is currently on a Nate Silver/538 kick, this hearkens me back to the heyday of the original 538 and one of its staunch cons, Bart DePalma, who posts here sporadically:

Our Republic Has Stumbled, But Has Not Yet Fallen

My descriptive phrases do not begin to do justice to the damage these policies are doing to the country.

April 23, 2010 10:46 AM

I wonder whether I live in America anymore when the government imposes its will in opposition to the people. That is what ruling classes do, not representatives of the people.

May 2, 2010 4:21 PM


He was/is a true die hard con and as such will not be voting for Trump. I encourage Althouse cons to do the same ...

Static Ping said...

Actually, the relief would have been that the FBI recommended charges, Hillary immediately dropped out of the race, the Democrats came up with a candidate who was not a felon.

If the United States is going to have a Julius Caesar, I would prefer one that actually is capable of accomplishments outside of graft.

Matthew Sablan said...

Man. Poor Scooter Libby; I guess George Bush should have just fully pardoned him after all.

tim in vermont said...

I wonder whether I live in America anymore when the government imposes its will in opposition to the people. That is what ruling classes do, not representatives of the people.

Preach it brother! Imposing one's will on the people is what power is all about!

Stronger Together. (FBI, Justice Dept, IRS)

tim in vermont said...

Grow Up Mathew. Adults are talking.

shiloh said...

Only the strong survive brother ...

The Drill SGT said...

Static Ping said...
maybe the Vatican....


I think you are wrong. The Jesuits have always run the Church Intel Department and nobody ever accused the "Soldiers of Christ" of being idiots or having short memories. And the Jesuits have not forgotten the 30's, when the State Dept broke the Jesuit codes...

dreams said...

Larry Kudlow says there is still a Clinton foundation FBI investigation so they have clean up work yet to do.

tim in vermont said...

Dream on dreams.

Stronger Together (FBI, Justice Dept, IRS)

Titus said...

Poor pubes, depressed, devastated, etc....and I love it.

tits.

dwick said...

"I'm relieved. I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along."

I'll remind everyone here this is the thinking of someone (a view likely representative of the overwhelming majority of her academic colleagues) who has molded the current generation and is molding the future generation of members of our legal profession.

Given the number of lawyers in Washington DC, it's no wonder we're in the mess we're in.

'Justice is blind'... except when it may skew and meddle with political processes arbitrarily deemed to be be too far along.

grackle said...

I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along.

I agree. However, the fact that they were never going to indict is a totally different issue. We should not assume the folks controlling events, Obama and Clinton(Lynch and Comey are just following orders), have any such altruistic motives.

No, I do not want what would be, could ONLY be, a judicial surrealistic circus, a horrific spectacle and a hurtful, divisive, perhaps permanent wound to our nation’s psyche. It’s just not worth it to me. Everyone knows she’s guilty. It shouldn’t need an indictment and trial for it to matter, for it to affect the current political situation.

Side note: In that way, with the general fore-knowledge of guilt, it’s as if they had decided not to indict O. J. Simpson. But the antics and furor associated with O. J.’s trial would pale in comparison if Hillary were ever indicted.

They are unscrupulous, They’ll smile through every scandal knowing they cannot be touched because they control the system. They control the media, academia, the arts, the bureaucracies and almost control the SCOTUS and with all that they control you and me. But there’s one way they CAN be beat.

If the corruption truly offends you there’s only one way to get back at them: Vote for Trump.

buwaya said...

"The Jesuits have always run the Church Intel Department"

But these days they are all homosexuals, and communists.

shiloh said...

there is still a Clinton foundation FBI investigation

Keep hope alive!

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"When the President does it, it's not illegal." - R.Nixon

n.n said...

In the best case, Americans may not want a martyr for the cause. The issue is probably a hot potato even for the well-placed people with integrity still functioning in our government. Perhaps a democratic repudiation of Clinton et al would be the best and only sustainable outcome.

That said, this announcement raises the stakes for Trump et al beyond the extraordinary phobia that developed around him since announcing his opposition to establishment politics.

AReasonableMan said...

tim in vermont said...
I have decided to become a pro Hillary troll.


You sort of were already. By endlessly building fantastic castles in the air you end up deflating your fellow Republicans and putting off moderates.

virgil xenophon said...

I see Brother Tim has found his true calling.. :)

Curious George said...

"How do you feel about this? I'm relieved. I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along."

Pathetic. But a good time to shoot Bill in the head, right Professor?

Pathetic.

tim in vermont said...

Poor pubes, depressed, devastated, etc....and I love it. - Titus

Me too, Titus. It's great! The law is a toy for our amusement.


As Comey said "No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case."

We all know only Democrats are reasonable, so "reasonable" = "Democrat"

And after accomplishing this substitution, to wit: "No Democrat prosecutor" it becomes plain to even the dimmest pube hillbilly homophobe!

Stonger Together (FBI, Justice Dept, IRS)

shiloh said...

"But these days they are all homosexuals"

About 90% ... the remaining 10% are wannabes.

Anonymous said...

Most shocked and hurt, Michael K and Cubanbob, who daily crowed about Hillary being indicted.

Michael McClain said...

We always knew the fix was in.

LilyBart said...

*FBI Nullification* The Obama Administration's FBI decides not to prosecute? Color me surprised - Not.

mylesman48 said...

Our system is beyond corruption. And the demcCRAP party isn't too far from surrendering the entire country when the price is right.

The Saudis, Quatar, China, Japan, and maybe a few others will eventually bribe or pay off the clintons/obamas/ryan, and they'll own this place.

And don't look for our transgendered Pentagon to stop anybody. Remember how well the Navy performed after the Iranian row boat captured two of our boats? Or maybe Sgt Bergdahl will come to our rescue.

The D.C. bureaucracy including the Pentagon, Supreme Court, and the media deserve to be prosecuted and jailed.

tim in vermont said...

You sort of were already. By endlessly building fantastic castles in the air

I know man, not a word of what I said was true! You guys proved it was false over and over again, with the simplest and most devastating logical analysis: "tut tut, tim" No more was required, so none was forthcoming!

But I couldn't hear it until now. I see that it is all about power, the lust and will to power, and especially, Hillary's right to be President.

This has been a wonderful day!

n.n said...

This is a day of great sarcasm. Let us all pray to the gods in the twilight zone, their liberal judges, and sacrifice the babies for some redistributive change and liberal doses of opiates.

rhhardin said...

It's like gay marriage. The law bends to get the answer women want.

The Drill SGT said...

dreams said...
Larry Kudlow says there is still a Clinton foundation FBI investigation so they have clean up work yet to do.


If the world had any justice, Comey would indict HRC's 10 co-conspirators, and we could have a fascinating trial :)

Ron Snyder said...

Relieved? I was going to say that this was beneath you Ann, but clearly it is not.

tim in vermont said...

Most shocked and hurt, Michael K and Cubanbob, who daily crowed about Hillary being indicted - Unknown.

I know, the fools! Why don't you save me the trouble and explain the justice of all of this to those morons? I am still having a little trouble, being new to this side of the aisle, articulating the exact reasons. Please help a novitiate.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, they're not going to indict anyone over the pay-to-play scheme for the foundation. They literally have Clinton's team saying: "We gave you everything," and then them finding documents that were not handed over. In any other investigation, it doesn't matter WHY you don't give the government documents. Hell, the described method [looked at headers with key words] is rife for abuse and can be designed to let things slip through the cracks. Any other investigation, those people would be in trouble.

If, when they have red handed proof someone removed classified markings from documents and then sent them illegally, they don't go forward, they're not going to go forward with something harder to prove like corruption.

Anonymous said...

"If the corruption truly offends you there’s only one way to get back at them: Vote for Trump."

Hahahahahaha!

dreams said...

"Dream on dreams.

Stronger Together (FBI, Justice Dept, IRS)"

I'm just saying they still have clean up work to do, not dreaming.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Our next president is going to be someone who puts her own desire for secrecy (for her own benefit) above her desire to protect the national security of the United States.

Enjoy your victory, Democrats.

Curious George said...

"Titus said...
Poor pubes, depressed, devastated, etc....and I love it.

tits."

Hey when Hillary lets in a million muzzies and one decides to give you a flying lesson off some building, remember this post. All they way down.

shiloh said...

t in vt

Do you see the light?

yoobee said...

Wasn't there an email exchange with on of the IT people who advised Clinton's people that the server set-up was likely unsecure and in violation of the rules? As I recall, that person was quickly hushed. If this was correct, it seems clear that Clinton knowingly stored the information in an unsecure server, in violation of the statute. In other words, the intent would have existed at least from that point on.

Mr. D said...

On the bright side, now that the threat of prosecution is gone, all that blackmail dirt the Chinese and Russians have on Madame President is irrelevant. You can't blackmail someone who is immune from consequences.

tim in vermont said...

I am really trying to join your side, ARM, so please, next time I make a statement that is fantastical, and totally, or even partially disconnected from reality, please point it out. I partly blame your failure to do so in the past for my late epiphany .

Naaah! I get it now. Bourgeois "truth" is not truth at all!


Power to the Clintons!

wendybar said...

Guess I am being forced to jump on the Trump Train, because we cannot let this lying criminal to be president, and Trump is less dangerous.

mockturtle said...

@Yancy Ward: I will speak up in Ms. Althouse's defense- her position is reasonable, even if bitter to the tongue. It can be properly stated that it is The People's responsibility to thwart Clinton's ascent in November. If we are unable to do that, knowing now that she has repeatedly lied about this issue, then we deserve the consequences. Like DKWalser wrote above, had Clinton told the truth a year ago, she likely wouldn't have been the nominee- even the Unknowns and Shilohs of the Democratic Party would have had the good sense to choose a different nominee- she has forced us to make this decision. I hope we make the right one, but if we don't, we shouldn't lament Comey's decision in this matter- it was still up to the voters in the end.

I well remember when the DC idiots re-elected Marion Berry. Let's hope we aren't all that stupid!

The Vault Dweller said...

I've been trying to think of an analogy for this e-mail situation to remove it from the tech world and into the 'real' world. This is the best I could come up with so far:

An upper level employee of the Federal government, who regularly deals with important and sensitive government information is working on a document. Instead of storing it the office file cabinet like everyone else, this person takes the document with them to starbucks. They look at the document while at starbucks, but then leave it on their table at starbucks when they leave starbucks. The next day when someone asks for that document, the employee says, "oh that one, I have that at starbucks, I'll get it to you in a short while." That employee then feigns surprise when the person asking for the document appears in disbelief and is worried about the security of the document.

This analogy is ok, but to make it fit more accurately with the Clinton situation we would have to change a few things:
-The document wouldn't just deal with sensitive information, some of it would deal with classified information, some of it classified at the highest levels;
-The document would have contained information which was classified when the employee was looking at it;
-The employee wouldn't have left the document at Starbucks overnight but for a period of years;
-This starbucks is special in that it can be frequented by people from all over the world including people from countries which are our adversaries like China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran;
-It is very difficult and sometimes impossible to tell if someone from those countries was at the starbucks or saw the document;
-It was not one document but tens of thousands of documents;
-When asked for the documents the employee responded by handing over many documents but also saying that he had destroyed tens of thousands of other documents that he happened to store at the same starbucks but were unrelated personal documents;
-The feigned surprise remains the same however.

I think is a fairly good description.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I'm still hung up on why intent matters if the action is a crime when someone acts with gross negligence. Doesn't gross negligence mean that you didn't intend to do harm but acted so irresponsibly that your still committed a crime?

Like, I wish some lawyer-types would explain it to me. If the criminal statue says you violate the law if you act with gross negligence how does your lack of intent factor in? Either you acted with gross negligence or not, right? I understand that some laws require an element of intent but it was my understanding that the laws in question here, regarding handling classified material, did not--that gross negligence was enough to violate the law.

What am I missing here? Do I misunderstand the negligence standard, or the statutes in question, or what?

coupe said...

Yawn. You people sound just like all the losers at a rigged horse race.

Get over it.

I just had a Big Whopper and Onion rings, and I have to say I f'n love la mayonnaise:

"Sauce froide, semi-solide, obtenue en émulsionnant de l'huile avec un ou plusieurs jaunes d'oeuf et de la moutarde, et en relevant le tout d'un filet de vinaigre ou de citron."

Scott said...

How do I feel? Honestly, terrified right now with what this represents to the ideas that hold the country together. To quote Fredrick Douglass: A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. I just hope that it comes to the ballot box and not the cartridge box.

damikesc said...

The FBI knows she sent and received top secret information on her private server.

But, hey, there's not enough evidence to prove if she sent and received top secret information on her private server.


Again, time for the GOP to pass the Clinton Bill, removing all penalties for mishandling classified info.

If Hillary wasn't punished, how can we ever justify punishing anybody?

We're officially living in a fully corrupt and lawless society. I hope people stop paying their taxes.

The FBI has just ruined its entire legacy. Society works best when people willingly follow the rules. It goes poorly when everybody decides not to.

Clearly, following the rules is a move for suckers.

If Trump was smart, he'd make a strong Two Americas speech --- one where the law applies and one where the law is ignored.

So Althouse thinks politics - this far along - should trump the rule of law?

Moral: Stonewall for as long as humanly possible and then find a political party to run you for President.

Hey, anybody bet that if Gary Johnson was accused of this that the FBI would decide to not prosecute?

Intent was the crucial factor as many criminal law experts have said.

It never was required. Intent is not needed here...but her setting up a private email server is intent regardless.

Oh well, looks like the Tree of Liberty needs some nourishment.

As with Obamacare, small government types can't expect the legal system to bail them out of political problems. We have to win arguments and win elections.

Since we're now a banana republic, there are OTHER ways to deal with political problems. Less savory, but that's life.

James Comey would be found hanging later today, if there was such a thing as justice.

There's a more appropriate woman for this to be in reference to.

I have held a Secret clearance myself (though it's been years), and I have close friends and relatives who hold or who have held top secret clearances. Comey's statement was just silly -- criminal charges have been brought and successfully prosecuted for far less 'recklessness' than this. The damage of this decision is going to be enormous.

Serious question: why would a defense lawyer for these people not demand a retrial and exoneration under unequal treatment?

mockturtle said...

As I posted yesterday: The Declaration of Independence is still a valid document.

David Smith said...

I"m relieved, too. Had she been charged, particularly before the convention, someone else might have ended up the Democrat Wing of the Washington Party candidate. I can't imagine that it would have been someone I would be tempted to vote for, but they may have been somewhat less vile.

Now, if she is elected, there will be not a shred of legitimacy remaining in the Federal Executive branch, and soon, the Judicial as well.

The ultimate outcome is unlikely to be positive, at least not for some time, but at least the other shoe will have been dropped for all to see. Our Masters have no legitimate hold on our loyalty or obedience, and they're clumsy fools to boot.

tim in vermont said...

Power is its own legitimacy. I don't know what you loser hillbilly cons are prattling on about!

Matthew Sablan said...

"Clearly, following the rules is a move for suckers."

-- This has been true my entire life, and yet I *still* follow the rules.

damikesc said...

I hope Trump wins.

And I hope he PUNISHES our enemies. Domestically moreso than foreign. Make them bleed.

I don't really see how you go from Trump cheerleader to this--particularly since this statement is so completely indefensible. There is NEVER a bad time to see justice served--should we decide simply that prosecution should never be brought against someone who is running for high office?

I'd argue it is MORE vital to do it then. In the end, people have little faith in the system and this kills it more. Go to BLM activists and ask "Why are you supporting a woman who would imprison you for a fraction of what she did?" Do it for everybody.

Burn. It. All. Down.

-- Here's the deciding factor: Is this person powerful? If yes, then no sanctions. If no, then yes sanctions.

It should be "Is this person a Republican". As has been pointed out, Obamacare passed because a joke of a prosecution of Ted Stevens DURING AN ELECTION gave the Dems that seat.

A little over forty years ago the FBI had sufficient enough integrity to bring down Nixon through its mouth pieces at the WaPo. Who would've thought back then there was more integrity in government back then than there is today in and that now this Administration is indisputably the most corrupt Administration in the last hundred years?

If this happened in a Romney admin, there'd be charges brought. This is a Democrat thing. They need to be made extinct.

tim in vermont said...

I am taking down the flag in my yard. Seriously. I will fly a Hillary flag instead.

Right after I send her a check. You guys think I am kidding, but I am not.

n.n said...

Well, this is how the government functioned in the Soviet Union until it was aborted by its appointed guardians. There must be far more bitter clingers in America than there were in the Soviet Union. That said, keep your head low, praise the established orthodoxy, and sacrifice your first, second, or whatever order born to the gods in the twilight zone so that you may receive favorable treatment from the State-established Church.

tim in vermont said...

Render unto Hillary that which is Hillary's people!

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

Remember when Dems pretended that sunshine laws were needed? Those were the days.

Why should any politician turn over any documents ever?

mockturtle said...

Indeed! Why should Trump turn over his tax returns?

Mike said...

Once again the Clinton strategy of delay, obstruct, evade, lie, forget, destroy, and delay some more has proved successful. Grrrrreat candidate you got there Democrats!

dreams said...

The Dems control the government via all the government employees, remember James Comey was head of the FBI when it let Lois Lerner skate too. The IRS is a huge weapon against the Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Oh Lord, please let Trump win and then Lord, please smite all Democrats.

tim in vermont said...

Just took down the flag. Next BM, I am going to wipe my ass with it. We owe them nothing.

I Callahan said...

I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along.

?????

Let's try a metaphor. A certain presidential candidate is arrested for murder. Prosecutor drops the charges shortly thereafter, proclaiming that it's quite possible that it wasn't intentional. Law professor is glad because she wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along.

In other words: how far down that slippery slope are you willing to go?

Sweet Jesus, we really are screwed.

Anthony said...

>>I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along.

And you teach law? Sorry, I'm outta here. That's just pathetic.

Didn't think I'd live to see the day we became a banana republic but there you have it. Ciao, Althouse.

coupe said...

I believe the Pope should begin proceedings in order to make James Comey a Saint.

One of the requirements for a Saint, is that they must perform a Miracle.

mockturtle said...

Tim in Vermont, please! It's still OUR flag and it's still OUR country. We just have to take it back from those who would destroy it.

Anonymous said...

And Dear Lord, please smite all those Republicans who don't endorse Trump. Oh yes, please God send plagues and boils to those Never Trumpers.

Fabi said...

Yo, tim in vermont -- got room for one more? I'm tired of being honest, obeying the law, paying my taxes -- I want to join the dark side. Wait, I mean the side of the angels, and regulatory and legal agencies!

Forward!

MathMom said...

What? Just because the political process is this far along, we should let a felon become president?

I'd like to see her head on a pike.

tim in vermont said...

please! It's still OUR flag and it's still OUR country. We just have to take it back from those who would destroy it.

No, it's not YOUR country. It maybe used to be equality before the law, now it's "Might makes right" and "Trial by political combat"

I am not going to risk my future by being on the losing side of this fight!

Hillary! Stronger Together!

Joan said...

Watch it, coupe, you'll be targeted for inciting Comey's murder. The first requirement for sainthood is you have to be dead.

Rusty said...

And the usual suspects gather in the streets and hand out candy.

Anonymous said...

Tim, pull yourself together man. Take your Xanax and lay down in a darkened room.

n.n said...

Romney is sleeping with Hillary and the new Democrats now... Trump scares him.

Hence the progressive phobia that developed on both sides of the isle following Trump scratching the surface of the establishment corruption. They loved or at least tolerated him when when he was a moderate and went along to get along, but since he promised to organize the people to audit their special and peculiar interests, the crying has reached an unprecedented pitch.

tim in vermont said...

Axlerod is pulling the loyalty to country line to defend the decision. "Claiming the system is rigged is a disservice to our country." When he says "ours" he doesn't include the likes of you and your lot. He means people like me who write checks to the Democrats. $1,000, seriously. I had better be about it.

Anonymous said...

Lord, hear our plea! Shake the earth beneath the DNC, make their rotten structures crumble around their heads, better yet on their heads!

walter said...

Wiped away..like with a cloth.

tim in vermont said...

Tim, pull yourself together man. Take your Xanax and lay down in a darkened room

So I should put some ice on it! I should have thought of that! Thanks!

dreams said...

"I am not going to risk my future by being on the losing side of this fight!"

I think that is exactly what Paul Ryan and a lot of the establishment Republicans have decided.

mockturtle said...

Is America worth fighting for? Are there any men out there, or are you all mice--or lambs to the slaughter?

I Callahan said...

It can be properly stated that it is The People's responsibility to thwart Clinton's ascent in November. If we are unable to do that, knowing now that she has repeatedly lied about this issue, then we deserve the consequences.

I'm afraid that isn't quite good enough for me. It still allows anyone running for president to be above the law, and starts us down a slippery slope while they're in office.

Oh, who am I kidding. That horse left the barn long ago.

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.

Cassandra said...

I agree with your bottom line -- the outcome of the presidential election should not be affected by indicting on these facts. But I look forward to your legal analysis which very could differ from your political judgment.

It seems to me that the FBI has read the "gross negligence" prong out of the statute. And it does so simply by observing that "extreme carelessness" (isn't that the definition of gross negligence?) has seldom or never been criminally prosecuted on similar facts but is and should be left to administrative sanction or, in this case, electoral judgment.

l think this is "right" in in a political sense, with the noncriminal sanction here being further scorching public exposure of Hillary's duplicity. But I still regret that my best hope, in an extremely sad election year, that Hillary would be indicted and Joe (but only for four years) would be our next president (rather than Hillary, Donald or Bernie) has been dashed.

tim in vermont said...

I just don't understand progressive's hate for their own country.

We don't hate the country! It's you and your ilk we hate. People who get in the way of our path to power.

Mo5m said...

That's it. Keep quitting and coming back but this is absolutely it. You are RELIEVED that the POLITICAL PROCESS won't be interrupted when the Justice Department and now the FBI have been corrupted? You live in a world I can't comprehend.

Martin said...

No "rule of law" for the well-connected, at least if they are Democrats, though a few establishment Republicans get taken care of, too, if they aren't threats.

Following Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton, we are now, officially, a banana republic.

Not that I expected anything different--the fix was in from the beginning. The brazenness of it all, the thumb in the eye and daring us to do anything about it, is a bit unexpected, though. I really thought it would be done more discreetly, on a Friday afternoon and all. But, it has always been the Clinton's way to stick their thumb in the country's eye, so I should have expected this style as well as the substance.

n.n said...

mockturtle:

Is America worth fighting for?

A qualified maybe. The "rule of law", "laws of nature", "principles of morality", and other standards of welfare, viability, and stability have lost their mooring and we are drifting to a degenerative state. Apparently, this is what the people want, maybe. We'll find out this Fall.

tim in vermont:

Your moral center is still showing.

Dr. Gru said...

What kind of law is it that you teach? Is there a part of the syllabus that talks about "yeah, she broke the law but we wouldn't want it to upset the political process"? WOW...

When I was a youngster there was Watergate and everyone was hammer & tongs after Nixon, Rightly so. Ford pardoned him and lost an election over it. Rightly so.

Then along came OJ... and after 90 minutes of "deliberation"; he was acquitted. A miscarriage of justice to be sure BUT at least he faced a jury.

Then came Bill Clinton... not so many hammer & tongs this time. He was impeached but not convicted because his political allies saved him in a shameful show of disregard for the truth. He later plead to a federal perjury charge, one of the impeachment charges, and was subsequently fined & disbarred. Justice delayed but justice of a sort.

Now this... yes, she broke the law but she did not "intend" to (BS on stilts as they say) so we're not going to recommend she be charged even though we charged a four star military hero with the same thing recently (and I am SURE he did not intend anything... noooo!)

Used to be you could have faith in our institutions. 1973 was only 43 years ago. Now, not so much. and people wonder why his Trumpiness has a following? The chickens always come home to roost.

SAFVet said...

@althouse: I am terribly disappointed in your remark. You, as a law prof, should understand the paramount need to uphold the rule of law in this country. Are you saying that someone who has clearly violated numerous portions of the Title 18 U.S.C that call for felonies should be let off just to smooth the current political process? For SHAME!!

Please consider the following from Andrew McCarty in today's "The Corner":

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

gerry said...

I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along.

Irrational dispassion. Sad.

Johnathan Birks said...

There's a difference between avoiding indictment and being innocent. The investigation laid out the reasons Hillary is manifestly unfit for POTUS, just as the Benghazi report did.

Anonymous said...

"I'd like to see her head on a pike".

I know you are upset Mathmom, but reconsider your comment, it makes you sound like some vigilante lunatic.

Anonymous said...

Right. Actually providing 'equal protection under the law' is soooo messy.

tim in vermont said...

tim in vermont:

Your moral center is still showing.


I am just a novitiate. Give me time.

Maybe when the check to Hillary clears.

Anonymous said...

I encourage all Americans, when visiting Washington, DC, to bring bananas.
Hang them on the White House fence.

tim in vermont said...

I encourage all Americans, when visiting Washington, DC, to bring bananas.
Hang them on the White House fence.


How racist can you get?

Freeman Hunt said...

Perhaps public defenders should advise their clients to run for President.

EMD said...


I wouldn't have liked to see the political process skewing and meddling with criminal law.

walter said...

Blogger Mike said..
Why is someone like Titus so happy to see a grifter get away with harming this nation?
--
Oh..you are giving him way too much credit. But at least he's marginally on-topic this time.

Matthew Sablan said...

So, how long ago did Clinton and Obama know this decision had been made?

Ann Althouse said...

Those of you who want to live in an America where every crime is prosecuted... who's going to pay for all that imprisonment? And who will be left to guard the prison after we're all inside.

I wish we had a set of criminal law statutes that consisted only of what we are committed to prosecuting, but if we are just wishing, I wish for a utopia where everyone is kind to everyone else and no criminal law is needed.

Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion."

-- The discretion in this case is "She's important," not "this crime is not that important." Or: "We might not win." He laid out a clear, compelling case of negligence. We can prove intent to distribute classified information to people without clearances because we have emails she hid from government oversight with her on the From line and people without clearances on the To line.

Sebastian said...

Now here's a fun scenario to contemplate: to clear her name, AG Lynch decides not to accept the FBI recommendation after all.

I know, I know . . .

Hey, yours truly (ahem) was among the first to say Hill had calculated she could get away with it, that nothing showed she couldn't, and that she'd therefore be likely to skate.

If a conservative cynic is always right, is he still a cynic?

wildswan said...

While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire
And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the
mass hardens,
I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth.
Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence; and home to the mother.
You making haste haste on decay: not blameworthy; life is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly
A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains: shine, perishing republic.
But for my children, I would have them keep their distance from the thickening center; corruption
Never has been compulsory, when the cities lie at the monster's feet there
are left the mountains.
And boys, be in nothing so moderate as in love of man, a clever servant,
insufferable master.
There is the trap that catches noblest spirits, that caught – they say –
God, when he walked on earth."

Freeman Hunt said...

"Hello, I am a public defender, and I have been assigned to your case."

"Okay."

"First, we need to see if we can get the whole case thrown out. Do you have any leverage? Any connections?"

"Yeah, man. My connections are what got me in trouble."

"No, not those connections. Rich people. Do you know any rich people?"

"Kenny was pulling down two grand a week last month."

"Is that the richest person you know? Do you know anyone with a plane?"

"A plane? Like Beyonce?"

"Do you know Beyonce?"

"No. Damn, I'd like to though."

"Wouldn't we all. So, no rich people. How about powerful people?"

"Yeah, yeah, I know powerful people. James D. had a territory that covered half of central east, and his girlfriend is my cousin. There's also this guy I went to school with, Darren, who's a crooked cop up on the north side, and he can do all kinds of shit like lock people up for 24 hours or take stuff from guys. He'll take bribes sometimes to look the other way too."

"Okay, so no."

"What do you mean? I've got everything for you."

"No, what I need to help you is someone very rich, the sort of person who could fly out to have a little sit down on your behalf with the prosecutor."

"I thought that was you."

"Ha ha ha. No, no, not an official sit down. Also, I'm not rich. You need someone who can make payoffs."

"I thought that was illegal."

"A technicality. Powerful is good too. For example, it would be great if you could tell the prosecutor that you could put her in a fantastic job if she lets you off."

"Like being a Playboy Bunny?"

"No, no, like being a more important prosecutor."

"Oh. How am I going to make her a more important prosecutor?"

"Well, right now she thinks you're going to do it by going to jail."

"Damn."

"Have you considered running for President of the United States?"

buwaya said...

The pattern of corruption is too great to miss, this one being merely one case.
I don't know why so many insist on missing it.

Well, I do, but it does not reflect well on them.

I said below (see the Mississippi coal plant case) that the current Federal Government, in its state of financial probity and impunity can be compared to the Marcos dictatorship - with the exception of scale, the US government being much more grand.

Rich Rostrom said...

So if evidence comes out that Trump committed outright fraud with Trump University, that crime should be ignored?

If the White House tapes had surfaced in mid-1972, Watergate should have been ignored?

When "the procedure is the punishment", and circumstances greatly amplify the effect, then prosecutors should act with restraint. But for a candidate to expect immunity on the grounds that he is a candidate is comparable to the parricide who pleads for mercy as an orphan.

Quaestor said...

"I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along."

1974, six years into an eight year political process... What happened to Nixon must have really pissed you off, Professor.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Those of you who want to live in an America where every crime is prosecuted... who's going to pay for all that imprisonment?"

I do not want that, but I think the plane meeting and the "Maybe we'll keep Lynch on as AG," business make things look so terrible, that I don't see a good way out of this.

Sebastian said...

"Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion."OK, fine. But if a top official who sets up a whole private server, for ALL work-related communication she was supposed to preserve and protect from outside scrutiny, cannot be prosecuted, how can the FOIA and national security laws pertaining to information be enforced at all? If something as blatant and systematic as this, by the top official in a department, passes under discretion, what could possibly be a prosecutable offense?

Rit said...

Prosecutorial discretion is the most valuable right guaranteed by our constitution. Right there in our Bill of Rights it clearly states that laws are for the little people and prosecutorial discretion are for the big people, especially those who are Democrats. Our Founders really thought of everything, didn't they?

dreams said...

Democrats always toe the party line, no Dem defectors in the Clinton impeachment, no Dem defectors in the Obamacare vote. No Democrat politicians with integrity but great Democrat party loyalty which means the Democrats are sorry-ass corrupt public servants.

Joe said...

How much did Comey cost and/or what does the Clinton machine have over him?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Good catch, Professor; we should not have laws preventing mishandling classified material if we committed to prosecuting people who break those laws.
Of course most of us are outraged that the government has decided NOT to be committed to that rule in this specific case...but yeah, great point.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

In the real world it sure seems like prosecutorial discretion often has a palpable political tilt...but I guess that does not bother you, Professor.

Steve Uhr said...

From US Attorney Manual

"USAM 9-27.220 expresses the principle that, ordinarily, the attorney for the government should initiate or recommend Federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a Federal offense and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction is required under Rule 29(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact. In this connection, it should be noted that, when deciding whether to prosecute, the government attorney need not have in hand all the evidence upon which he/she intends to rely at trial: it is sufficient that he/she have a reasonable be lief that such evidence will be available and admissible at the time of trial. Thus, for example, it would be proper to commence a prosecution though a key witness is out of the country, so long as the witness's presence at trial could be expected with reasonable certainty.

The potential that—despite the law and the facts that create a sound, prosecutable case—the factfinder is likely to acquit the defendant because of the unpopularity of some factor involved in the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause, is not a factor prohibiting prosecution. For example, in a civil rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt—viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder—would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt whether the jury would convict. In such a case, despite his/her negative assessment of the likelihood of a guilty verdict (based on factors extraneous to an objective view of the law and the facts), the prosecutor may properly conclude that it is necessary and desirable to commence or recommend prosecution and allow the criminal process to operate in accordance with its principles."

Rit said...

Is Comey a prosecutor?
He plays one on TV.

Static Ping said...

Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion.

Oh, absolutely.

If you really believe that has any bearing on this case, I suggest you check your bank account to see if the check to the Nigerian prince has cleared yet.

Clyde said...

Not surprising at all that Obama's Department of Just-Us would decline to take any action. Laws are for the little people, for suckers and fools. People like Hillary Clinton are above the law, and don't care if you know it. What are you going to do, vote for Trump?

Balfegor said...

I don't think this result is unreasonable.

It's true that it means there's one law for the commoners and another for the grandees of the Democratic Party, but that's not exactly news. Even if she had been up for prosecution, would the President have allowed the prosecution to stand? She could have pled guilty to a technical violation, the President could have pardoned her, and then we'd wake up the next day to the media continually shushing us for making hay over such trivialities. MOVE ON!

That said, prosecutors have to be very careful about interference in the political process. If they had reached the proper stage in their investigation last year, the answer might be different. But to prosecute the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party immediately before an election will inevitably look like deliberate interference in the political process by the prosecution. Because of the political leanings of most prosecutors, it's more likely they'd go forward anyway if the target were Trump, but the optics would be just as bad.

And those optics aren't trivial. Americans are already, in many ways, contemptuous of the law. I'm not talking only about Black Lives Matter. Ordinary middle class Americans have lost their respect for the law. In everyday life, everyone knows perfectly well that, for example, possession of marijuana is a federal crime. But people who live orderly lives -- the sort of people who in an era in which the law commanded any respect would have been called "law-abiding" -- don't bat an eye at smoking a bit of pot. In that context, a high profile case in which the prosecution topples a major party candidate won't be a parable of impartiality in law enforcement, like Augustus banishing his daughter. It will look like a squalid little effort by a cabal of prosecutors to exploit the law to interfere with the political process. It will bring the law even more into disrepute than it already is. The prosecutors need to think more carefully than usual about how to proceed given those massive institutional risks.

Is it fair? No. But it is sensible.

Anonymous said...

So, Ann, you're in the "laws are for the little people" camp?

Thanks for letting us know that.

As for myself, it's nice to know that there is no rule of law in America, and that the only time I should obey a law I don't like, or that happens to be mildly inconvenient, is when I might get caught.

coupe said...

Comey proves that Catholics have no business in government. They can't take the pressure.

Rick said...

Ann Althouse said...
Those of you who want to live in an America where every crime is prosecuted... who's going to pay for all that imprisonment? And who will be left to guard the prison after we're all inside.

I wish we had a set of criminal law statutes that consisted only of what we are committed to prosecuting, but if we are just wishing, I wish for a utopia where everyone is kind to everyone else and no criminal law is needed.

Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion.


This ought to be beneath Althouse. The question is not whether discretion will exist but whether we allow it based on political position and connections. She changes the issue by first generalizing and then assuming opposition to the specific translates to the general, then pointing out the weaknesses in that position.

Should discretion be used in this specific case? Better people than Hillary Clinton have lost their jobs over far less. So I don't see how the circumstances could warrant discretion in this case. the only justification is political corruption.

buwaya said...

"It will look like a squalid little effort by a cabal of prosecutors to exploit the law to interfere with the political process. It will bring the law even more into disrepute than it already is."

Er, in neither case you linked did the "squalid effort" nor interference in the political process actually matter, politically. Would such a thing bring the law into greater disrepute than this?

The proper lesson, above all, is that those who lead orderly lives are missing the boat. They are well advised to start being disorderly, at least in respect to to legal issues, in circumstances where they are unlikely to get caught.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, nice straw man you set up at 1:46. However I don't think I need to believe in prosecuting all crimes to believe that politicians should be held to a high standard of conduct, and the higher the office the higher the standard.

CStanley said...

No time to read all the comments so apologies in advance if I'm repeating:

"When the Secretary of State does it, that means that it is not illegal."

With a Hillary is like Nixon tag of course.

jacksonjay said...

Best Althouse troll to date ("I'm relieved...")!

CStanley said...

"Those of you who want to live in an America where every crime is prosecuted... who's going to pay for all that imprisonment?"

Well if we're worried about that, how about creating a category for white collar superpredators? That would certainly apply to both Clintons.

Honestly I'm incredulous that anyone could call this "a relief". Our entire system has been shown to be a sham, and it's a relief that we don't have to go through the messiness of justice? Really?

I see someone brought up Mussolini execution-isn't THAT kind of messiness we should be more concerned about?

PackerBronco said...

Blogger Yancey Ward said...
I will speak up in Ms. Althouse's defense- her position is reasonable, even if bitter to the tongue. It can be properly stated that it is The People's responsibility to thwart Clinton's ascent in November. If we are unable to do that, knowing now that she has repeatedly lied about this issue, then we deserve the consequences


Oh yes, we're all reasonable people here. It's reasonable for Comey to whitewash this whole thing because he knew that the justice dept. wasn't going to do anything. So why stick your neck out? It's reasonable for everyone else to go along because - hey, Clinton's probably going to be president anway, so why make waves?

But what Anne wrote is not praiseworthy. It's putting politics over the law. So fine. Go ahead do that. But I don't want you teaching law to me or my kids or anyone who cares a fig about integrity or honesty or the truth.

There's a quote from Judgement at Nuremberg:

----------
Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it, you must believe it!

Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it 'came to that' the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.
----------

Well, it "came to that" the first time you wrote approvingly of a decision that put politics above the law. And you own the consequences.



Jack Wayne said...

All of you attacking Althouse and Comey should remember one thing: lawyers are amoral. They don't care about the Law or Justice. What they care about is winning. The ends justify the means. So, Comey admitted that Clinton broke the law. He also said he didn't believe that case was strong enough to win. Althouse applauds that statement and gussies it up with "prosecutorial discretion". Now, why doesn't Comey think that case is winnable? Because the Clintons are above the law. They have always been above the law and they will always be above the law. How did they get to be above the law? Is it because of their personalities or is it because of the amoral society we have where Clintons are always home safe? Accept the fact that in our society we have decided that some people are above the law. Which raises the question: with amoral elites like Althouse and Comey how long can this society last? If there is no hill worth dying for (for example, prosecuting the guilty Hillary) then the only conclusion I can reach is that the Social Contract (Constitution) is broken. The Constitution is dead and we just don't know how to deal with that fact.

jacksonjay said...


Those of you who want to live in an America where every crime is prosecuted... who's going to pay for all that imprisonment?

Has anyone mentioned Dinesh D'Souza?

PackerBronco said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion.


Oh please. The discretion here was based on the fact that the perpetrator was "too big to prosecute".

We all know the score. Don't defend it.

jacksonjay said...


Has anyone mentioned Rob Blogo?

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
Those of you who want to live in an America where every crime is prosecuted... who's going to pay for all that imprisonment? And who will be left to guard the prison after we're all inside.

I wish we had a set of criminal law statutes that consisted only of what we are committed to prosecuting, but if we are just wishing, I wish for a utopia where everyone is kind to everyone else and no criminal law is needed.

Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion.

Not every crime, Althouse. Every politician that breaks their public trust. There should be a greater weight on betraying a public trust.
All you are doing is admitting that there is a separate group of laws for the elite.

james conrad said...

WOW, 375 comments with mine, is that a record?

Scott M said...

Just had a convo with a friend in Britain. We're ideologically opposite and he was a bit bummed out last week after Brexit. I sent him a message that I was feeling similarly down in the dumps about this outcome re Clinton.

He replied that she was a political adversary, so that's to be expected, but I thought out it and knew that wasn't the case. I would be just as upset if the FBI had Trump dead to rights on something and let him off.

Back when the OJ verdict came out, I had returned to college after enlisting. On the day they handed the verdict down, there were large-screen TV's set up in all the common areas, all over campus. I found myself in the fitness center lobby with a few hundred others at the appointed time. Roughly equal black/white.

When the verdict was announced, there was outright celebration and cheering among most, if not all, of the black students. Most, if not all, of the white students just kinda stared in disbelief. A few caught my glance and gave me a sort of "what are you going to do?" look.

I was upset about that verdict as I am about this declaration. It's not about the merits of the case. It's not about justice being served. Then it was about a famous black man getting a fair trial. Now, it's about the Democratic front-runner for POTUS. Both decisions seemed utterly lacking at the time I heard them.

It's been decades since OJ. I wonder how many of those black students have changed their mind since? How many of them knew deep down, where logic rests, that it was a bullshit verdict? How many Democratic voters, deep down, know this one is too?

Not that it matters a single whit...

PackerBronco said...

Hey Anne,

Next time you teach your class, please include a list of names of people to whom the law doesn't apply. I'd like to get that writing.

jacksonjay said...


Obama DOJ discretion - 2008 Philly polling place thugs, Lois "Crashed Hard Drive" Lerner and Hillary "Nothing Classified" Clinton. Got It! If you work for us, fugit about it, if you oppose us, you're toast!

james conrad said...

I am not going to fault the FBI here, they have MUCH MORE info than i do on which to base a decision. Comey found fault, just not criminal fault, it will be interesting to see what sanction HRC will face as the Director alluded to. I can't imagine anyone (except maybe Hillary) keeping their security clearance intact after a breach like this.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger jacksonjay said: Got It! If you work for us, fugit about it, if you oppose us, you're toast!

Please. It's called by the more uplifting name "prosecutorial discretion" doncha' rubes know ...

jacksonjay said...


Yeah, we wouldn't have any prison guards if we prosecuted those Black Panthers in Philly wielding night sticks!

Rob said...

Comey concluded that Hillary lacks mens rea. So they're giving her a break because she's post-menopausal?

Anonymous said...

So prosecuting Hillary means we'd have to fill our prisons beyond capacity. What sort of horse shit is that?

You're a fraud, Althouse. An absolute fraud. If even 'moderate' academics are as worthless as you, I'd hate to see what the bad ones are like.

PB said...

gross negligence: demonstration of carelessness and violation of law and department policy even after having been briefed on the proper handling of government documents. Continued carelessness and violation of department policy even after having been reminded of proper handling of government documents.

Prosecutors have discretion, but so many have been charged, tried an convicted on much less.

Hillary is unfit for office.

buwaya said...

"Has anyone mentioned Dinesh D'Souza?"

Indeed. It all does go just one way.

Sebastian said...

@Balfegor (and AA): "That said, prosecutors have to be very careful about interference in the political process" But letting her skate, with the phony invocation of "discretion," is itself an egregious form of interference.

damikesc said...

Those of you who want to live in an America where every crime is prosecuted... who's going to pay for all that imprisonment? And who will be left to guard the prison after we're all inside.

One of the biggest violations recorded of mishandling national security information is not the same as demanding all cases of jaywalking be prosecuted. It's a bit much to even begin down that route.

Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion.

The discretion is "She's a powerful Democrat". Can you explain why anybody should take the law seriously when the people in charge not only do not take it seriously, but actively ignore and violate it?

When people see the powerful ignore the law and suffer literally no negative repurcussions, it makes one wonder why follow the law AT ALL?

I don't think the anarchy is good, but YMMV.

mockturtle said...

Interesting that Lynch changed from 'I will accept the FBI's findings' to 'I will abide by the FBI's findings' in just one day---when she, presumably, was certain that Comey would comply.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Wow, just fucking wow.

U.S.A.
July 4, 1776 - July 5 2016.

Scott M said...

How in the world does she qualify for a security clearance after this?

Quaestor said...

Here in the real world, there is prosecutorial discretion.

Which implies that there is also prosecutorial indiscretion.

Here in the real world, there is also political corruption. We used to be idealists, now we're realists. We used to think a government of laws and not of men was not only desirable, but possible. We Americans are getting far too used to reality.

walter said...

Don't want no dang accountability meddling with the political process.
And it's Clinton by an Altparse.

Joe said...

"...our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

That's not his decision to make. He isn't a prosecutor. So why the hell is he the one making this decision?

Sammy Finkelman said...

Director Comey I think indicated that she did meet the standard of gross negligence and so did many of her colleagues at the State Department. But they've never prosecutred thatwhen it stood alone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Rick said...

jacksonjay said...

Has anyone mentioned Dinesh D'Souza?


Or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.


It seems there are plenty of resources to go after conservatives and scapegoats. Only national security seems stretched - but amazingly only when Hillary Clinton is the subject. they had plenty of money to go after Edward Snowden.

Rusty said...

Maybe ,Ann, It's a good time for you to retire.
" We hold these truths to be self evident, That ALL men are created equal.....................unless you're a democrat. Then you have extra privileges.

Jeff Bangle said...

" Blogger HoodlumDoodlum said...
Honest question: what would Hillary have had to do to meet a standard of "gross negligence" here? I mean, apparently her actual actions don't meet that standard...but what would have?"

Become a Republican...

PaoloP said...

"I'm relieved. I wouldn't have liked to see a criminal law proceeding skewing and meddling with the political process now that it's so far along."

Are you kidding? What about JUSTICE? JUSTICE!!!

Tommy Duncan said...

I wonder what Tom DeLay thinks about this?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 483   Newer› Newest»