Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton Email Scandal — FBI Clears Her But New Angle Appears

Is there any other news worthy to talk or post about???
(Hardly seems possible)

Updated (after the following was posted): A good read from here. Highlight of this story update. It is both enlightening and worth a lot, I think:

Hillary Clinton has insisted all along that none of the emails she sent or received on her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was marked classified at the time.

That was contradicted by the Director of the FBI (James Comey) when he claimed that a “very small number” of her emails were in fact classified at the time.

The New York Times has since determined that that number was just two.

Now, the State Department has confirmed that those two in question weren’t actually classified at the time, but had been marked incorrectly during the course of the investigation (I note: That is probably true and was most likely done in haste to get them to the FBI investigators in a timely fashion – my guess, but it  makes sense).

Original Post Starts Here. 

1.  We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: (1) clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or (2) vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or (3) indications of disloyalty to the United States; or (4) efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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

3.  As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

4.  I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

5.  I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Now this development from here – totally out of the blue and refreshing at the same time.
  • The Associated Press now alleges Clinton lied — for saying there were no classified emails.
  • House and Senate Republicans are demanding Comey immediately testify.
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan told Fox News that “people have been convicted for less.” 
  • The New York Times’ front page called Comey’s testimony “an attack ad, ready-made.”
  • Donald Trump, who initially attacked Comey’s decision as “rigged,” then posted videos of his comments.

But what almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign.

The DOJ manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted. One former CT public defender said, in part: “It goes beyond discretion. It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”
The story and this angle continue in part with these elements:

Mainstream media and Republicans fawned over Comey’s comments, even as GOP congressional leaders claimed their sense of justice was offended because the opposing party’s presidential nominee would not face federal charges.

Virtually nobody outside of legal circles and academia questioned the appropriateness or outrageousness of Comey’s comments.

One academic legal blogger, Stetson University College of Law professor Ellen Podgor, notes: (1) most FBI investigations with no indictments don’t issue public statements; (2) the FBI’s investigation was one-sided; (3) Comey cited hypotheticals without facts; (4) Comey’s accusations about Clinton lawyers were unnecessary and unprofessional; and (5) it is Congress’ responsibility to upgrade the IT protocols of federal agencies like the State Department. 

Podgor continued: “When they do provide an announced recommendation of non-indictment, the FBI should limit their statement to just that. There is no need to tarnish a person's reputation in the process — especially when there is no concrete evidence to support the hypotheticals.”

[… other practicing lawyers were more blunt] … to read them and the rest click back to the main story to see the full scope of this totally new and different angle into this whole affair. Then stay tuned … 

This all is apt to get far, far worse over the coming days, weeks, months as we head towards November that is if the GOP has anything to say about it, and you can bet your bottom dollar they will milk this more than ever, even if that’s possible.

No comments: