I figured we needed a post on the topic with a few takeaways. My initial reaction was the the Republican House will not let this go until after the elections and will have committee meetings Benghazi style, whatever to keep the story going through the rest of the year. They have demonstrated that they do not care if they look like clowns and get destroyed by Clinton like they did with Benghazi, just a meeting is enough for Fox News to run with a story. It’s stupid and useless, but it’s going to happen.
So with James Comey’s press release he noted a few things. The most significant was that they did not recommend charges for Clinton, more specifically, they noted:
our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case
That’s significant, in cases like this, there is wide latitude to charge someone:
Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
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.
In addition, no evidence of hacking, no evidence or emails deliberate being deleted.
They did find that Clinton was careless in the handling of sensitive materials.
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.
As the FBI investigation was ongoing the State Department Investigation which highlighted the mess over the past five Secretary of States with the handling of email servers. At the time I was more interested if there was a breach or if laws were broken instead we get bureaucratic BS and CYA time. Seems like we got our answer.
Let the hearings begin!
Funny how in these times of “austerity”, the GOP lathers at the mouth at the prospect of another round of squandering public funds in transparently partisan attacks against Hillary Clinton.
These “hearings” are a sadly unfunny joke.
“extremely careless.”
Good thing she’s running against someone where “extreme” is a standard description.
Analysis from WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-fbi-director-systematically-dismantled-hillary-clintons-email-defense/2016/07/05/55c444ba-42da-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html?wpisrc=nl_heads-draw6&wpmm=1
Problematic, and certainly worrying behavior from the Secretary. Against a careful and competent opponent, I’d be worried. But when one contrasts the dozen or so emails on an unsecured private server with the operation to round up an forcibly eject 12 million people, and ban a billion people from the country…it looks like much ado about nothing.
She will be elected President, there’s little doubt in my mind. But the press and the public are primed to watch her every move, and she won’t have much benefit of the doubt next time something iffy transpires.
I think, as President, her margin of error will be very small, and the bar will be very high. It is still possible to turn this around, and for her to become a very popular and inspiring President.
And there will be something–either wholly manufactured or with an irritating grain of truth– that transpires and is “iffy.”
First, I had some trouble with your link. Perhaps this will work better for those interested in the Washington Post story.
My impression from this is that it is yesterday’s news. We’ve known, for YEARS, that about 50 classified emails were in the 30,000 provided for investigation. We’ve known for a similar time that the her decision to use her own server was an enormous blunder — I’ve said so here, pretty much anybody who knows anything about security says the same. The links “she said/he said” presentation strikes me as more provocative than informative.
Other than the usual GOP spin, amplified by the community of CDS (“Clinton Derangment Syndrome) sufferers, there is just nothing here.
how is that dismantling.
Clinton, no breach
FBI, no breach found
Whoa there! Stop with all the dismantling. I understand that the reporter spend a lot of time on this and it came up with nothing. But you need to save a little face here, that’s embarrassing.
If you think it’s no big deal, then fine.
He used the words “extremely careless” and implies that she was wrong/misleading/lying (take your pick, again based on your views) in some of her earlier statements.
Compared to what Trump says, of course, it’s nothing.
I don’t see why she went to all this trouble if not to shield herself from public disclosure. I know there are other thoughts like “didn’t want to use two devices.”
It’s just a sad state of affairs.
That pretty much was it.
Sanders deadenders need something to complain about, I guess you can hold on to that, no matter how completely meaningless it is.
CLINTON: “I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two.” News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn’t hold up in the investigation. Clinton “used numerous mobile devices to view and send email” using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.
Sanders deadender, trying to find something in nothing. Don’t worry you’ll have enough pretend stories to gasp at over the next few months. Even when factually you know they are political-only.
An odd combo, but seemingly not altogether rare
Sometimes it works easily, sometimes not.
STom, 119 were classified, not “about fifty.” Worse still she lied, or relied upon staff who lied to her when she said she turned over all of her email. The FBI report makes it clear that she withheld “several thousand” emails.
This is not “yesterday’s news.” This is the first truly independent study that proves the willful malfeasance of her team. It will not go away just because some people here on BMG are blind to it. Talk about CDS needs to focus on the liars who defend her rather than point out the fact that she is , with all of her failures, much better than the alternative.
only an idiot would think that, was the statement by the FBI.
Here is the graphic:
Here is the quote:
52 chains contained classified information when sent.
Ok, I grant you it was 110 emails — along the lines of an email and a response. Still, it was a TINY portion of the total.
I’m pretty sure that if somebody reviewed the NSA tapes of a similar number of phone conversations on insecure lines, they would find a similar number of improper disclosures from even a well-intentioned official.
Meanwhile, about 2,000 were “retroactively” classified. Sorry, but ex post facto is explicitly prohibited, and for good reason.
Ms. Clinton already acknowledged that she deleted ALL of her emails, and these 30,000 were recovered afterwards.
Deleting emails was no big deal in Massachusetts politics when Michael Kineavy — the city-hall connection in the liquor-license racket that brought down Diane Wilkerson — deleted ALL his emails. Martha Coakley made jokes about it, performed a perfunctory “investigation”, and did nothing.
Pretty much everybody involved in this has said, multiple times, that it was wrong, that it reflected abysmal judgement, and shouldn’t have happened. Still, it DID happen. This investigation confirms, one more time, that whatever Ms. Clinton did was NOT criminal. Period. I agree that it was stupid, distasteful, and a colossal blunder. Nevertheless, it was done. Done a long time ago. Not criminal.
There is nothing in any of this that hasn’t already been discussed ad nauseam for years.
…the State Department is disputing.
I almost feel like Comey’s statement was written by someone who wanted to indict HRC. Then Comey made a few edits and went with that version.
In short, it drips with ambivalence.
for over a year that has been the defining legal principal in my mind.
Or as Charlie Rose’s guest said last night : ” Hillary was CARELESS, not crooked.”
Fred Rich LaRiccia
that’s a rallying cry I can get behind!
and being a sinner myself I can identify with ALL the sinners of this world.
And so I proudly say to the world along with my President : ” Yes, I stand with her “.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
n/t
” Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don’t ever apologize for anything.”
PRESIDENT HARRY ‘GIVE ‘EM HELL’ TRUMAN
Fred Rich LaRiccia
zzz
Is this what we’ll be talking about for the rest of the campaign? Hillary’s emails?
Honestly, we have not learned much that we did not already know from the FBI chief.
Let’s move on. There are greener pastures ahead.
…maybe Hillary Clinton should volunteer to testify for 11 hours before the committee sometime this fall. After all, it worked out so well on Benghazi!:)
Perhaps Mr. Comey’s time would be better spent doing something about the continuing epidemic of police murders — like the Louisiana cops who murdered Alton Sterling.
This video is incredible and disturbing.
The gun laws in many states are becoming very problematic for police to defend their actions. “He had a gun” is a poor defense when having a gun is legal and common. Maybe it’s time police and sheriffs also get serious about gun control – in addition to changing the culture and training that allows these types of traffic stops to happen with such regularity.
It is my understanding that the rate of these incidents is not increasing, but rather the rate of news reports of them is increasing because of cell phone video.
The MN one is disturbing because the cop was screaming hysterically while not giving first aid to the guy he just shot to death for no reason. The cop’s demeanor makes me wonder whether he spent a few years during the last decade kicking in doors in Anbar or Fallujah.
An awful lot of returning veterans go into law enforcement. An awful lot of returning veterans get inadequate mental health treatment post-discharge. Setting aside the question of whether all these cops are Mark Furhman racist, and setting aside the tragedy of the post-discharge treatment provided to veterans, I just wonder whether putting a lot of these guys in law enforcement is particularly wise.
Probably not, especially when they are given the same weaponry used for fighting wars, training is not nearly where it should be, we criminalize way too many things (deadly encounters because of cigarettes or CDs), and they are supported by a wagon-circling culture and unions that make them believe that police are under constant attack (even though being a cop now is safer than it has been since the 1800s).
If I were a cop these days it seems I would be even MORE careful to not become the latest white cop to shoot a black person who turns out to be unarmed.
Per the Washington Post, and:
A report will be released on Friday which analyzes police procedures by offence by race.
That partisan ramble was the first speech of his campaign.
I’d love it if he said, “Fortunately in this case, Justice does not lack for unreasonable prosecutors, so I leave this in their capable hands.”
per usual, sums up where I’m at on this.
After laying out the truth
Collins puts that truth into the highly unusual political context of this year’s election:
Actual analysis of the record and input from those who know and have worked with her reveal someone who actually ranks very high on the trustworthiness scale.
wrote it–I think it was Yglesias, but I can’t find it now–but he stated what I though about Clinton: there’s been a vicious circle between her sketchy behavior and the right-wing’s pursuit of false scandals; she doesn’t trust the media or the Republicans and responds in ways that increase that distrust. Using a personal server was wrong, but she wouldn’t have gone there if she had trust in fair play.
It’s impossible to predict, but I half-expect that she will order a review and reorganizations of information-handling in the federal government.
Worth noting: Trump’s argument that HRC should be denied a security clearance has been repeated by Paul Ryan and now Marco Rubio.
While both these men try to maintain distance — Rubio flipped again and is now not going to the convention — they pick up on Trump’s Trumpness.
Beyond bluster from Mr. Trump, there’s very little the GOP can do except begin another round of flagrantly partisan nonsense.
Since Donald Trump will be the GOP nominee, I’m not sure even Paul Ryan wants to open the door of security clearances based on past behavior. Just how close IS Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin, what is the actual nature of their business dealings, and what leverage does Mr. Putin now have over Mr. Trump?
I’d rather see Congress show a bit more attention to the clear appearance of corruption inside the FBI.
Rubio flipped on his promise not to seek re-election to the US Senate so I am not surprised he is going for the red-meat appeal of denying her a security clearance. It is a desperately dishonest comment unless he also wants Condee Rice’s and Colin Powell’s security clearance cancelled also.
One media outlet headlined their defense, “She’s Slippery, but We Knew That.”
She is a narcissist unable to tell the truth anymore. She might have gotten away with it in days gone by, but with the internet and immediately retrievable video of her misunderstating facts, she is in a constant duet with herself.
I particularly enjoy her current anti-Trump commercials about foreign affairs and how he may not be able to handle sensitive data like she can. And didn’t THAT work out well, says the average voter….
that’s it. The legal part of this is over. From this point on, with the security clearance is political showmanship. I would not doubt think there will be other spin off investigations even after the elections, these are all political. so posturing by Ryan and other is not surprising anymore.
It’s not real anymore, that part is over. It’s about campaigning and donations now.
Are you seriously suggesting that Donald Trump — with his affinity for dictators, his man-love for Mr. Putin, his accolades for Saddam Hussein, his flagrant racism, sexism, xenophobia, and so on — is preferable to Hillary Clinton, even with her email issues?
Did I miss the story about voters in the UK choosing to block Hillary Clinton from entering the UK?
Seriously, Hillary Clinton on her worst day is surely safer for the entire world than Donald Trump on his best.
… And that’s the problem. The actual headline should read “everybody thinks she’s slippery, because everybody is saying she’s slippery. But we knew that”
If you strip away all the accusations — a vast majority of which have turned out to be wholesale lies, and much of the remainder molehills viewed as mountains — what do you have?
You can’t answer that question.
Everything you think you know about Hillary Clinton arrived in a kaleidescope of lies, misprisions and grotesque re-imaginings that have wholly warped reality impelled by your fervent desire for them to true.
In short, you have absolutely no idea who Hillary Clinton is. None whatsoever.
Those briefings start after the conventions, right? So, somewhere in August or September, Trump is going to blurt or tweet something out from a classified briefing, because Trump.
it will be a classy tweet, a really great tweet.
While we might blame his small hands for the error, I’m sure he’ll blame the lying tweetia.