It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s
The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not calling the shots.On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the revelation that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference.
The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.
It shows, they cry, that the fix was in!
News Flash: This is not news.
Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a few months back:
On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.
This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column:
On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.
Full story:
Comments (13)
Hillary is supposed to be investigate on pay-to-play but I don't see much of that in the news.
There are a lot of potential investigations and questions being raised not making the news.
One of the latest I've read lately is that mueller investigations aren't constitutional. That would make every thing mueller has done to date, null and void if that actually goes to court and wins. The question that brings this about, is if he meets the criteria outlined by the legal requirements for such investigations. It's argued that he does not but "rosenstien?", did.
There is a lot on the other side of the investigations and questions not making the news. Sadly, it seems pretty obvious that if you have little to nothing on the target; what real targets are you hiding?
So I will reserve judgement on the above article until someone with a more level attitude come up with similar "news". As written it is merely speculation and twisted facts, to fit an agenda and cannot be taken seriously.
The intention doesn't define the crime - the action defines the crime.
Intention, in this instance, isn't pertinent.
It's a silly assertion that in no way diminishes the crime...or the culpability of one committing the crime.
A just plain WRONG assertion
It's essential. Gross negligence can't be used.
Many commentators have criticized Comey’s decision, arguing the statute Clinton was accused of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), requires only “gross negligence,” not intent. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has gone so far as to say that replacing the words “gross negligence” with “intent” rewrites that statute to serve political ends.
Comey (perhaps at the direction of Prez Bsrry) cited 'intention' in exonerating Hildebeest.
But he (they?) ignored the letter, spirit and intention of the law by doing so.
just who is calling who a commy , both these two should have never been in the positions they were in .
Too funny...
"She's not only meeerely dead... she's really most sinceeerely dead!"
"She's gone where the Goblins go - Below...below, below, Yo-Ho!'