WebsterMark wrote on 07/07/16 at 13:55:30:Just drove home from KC and listened to pretty much the entire congressional hearing from FBI director Comey.
After listening to his answers, I agree with his decision, maybe 75%.
He's right when he says the law, not as it is written, but as it has been used for past 50 years, demands a certain level of 'intent' before prosecution is recommended. (It was used once he said in a similar case that was decided in a plea bargain) He found no direct evidence of intent to purposely leak classified information or to evade the FBI in searching for answers. In this case, ignorance of the law is in fact a defense.
However, I think that and this is a big f'ing however, those caught in criminal acts tend to do what they can to cover their acts. Hilary's actions in deleting emails and directing her attorneys to do so, could be construed as an attempt to hide the contents of those emails. Also, you could say using an unauthorized server that you had complete control of is in fact 'intend' to violate the law. But Comey didn't see it that way.
I also believe him 100% when he says no one from the White House, Justice Department or Clinton campaign ever tried to influence him.
However, I also think this might be true: think about John Roberts’s decision on Obamacare. He basically said he wasn't going to find it unconstitutional because he wasn’t going to end a Presidency before it got started. Obama was elected promoting this idea and if the people didn’t want it, they could unelect him. So instead, he said the fine imposed by Obamacare was really a tax. Perhaps Roberts thought yes, of course it's unconstitutional, but reasoned if people knew it was a tax and if they united against that, they'd elect a new congress to rewrite the law. Many thought it was a cowardly way out of inserting himself into the middle of history.
So, here’s my point: had Comey recommend to charge Hilary, that effectively ends her Presidential aspirations. So in essence, he very well could have, single handedly, decided who becomes President of the United States. I think its possible, consciously or unconsciously, he couldn’t bring himself to do that. Instead, he lays out the case of how inept, corrupt and dishonest Hilary Clinton really is and will leave it to the electorate to decide.
And by the way, listening to him discuss the actual facts of the case and what he found, it's shocking how dangerous her actions really were. The steps she took to operate that private server can lead you to only two possible conclusions, and neither are good for Hilary.
1) she's a crooked, lying thief who needed a private server to protect the illegal activities going on at the Clinton Foundation.
2) she's completely inept and stupid. As Comey said over and over, he was surprise at her lack of sophistication.
Either way, she cannot be President.
Gee Web, I am surprised that you agreed that much, from what I perceive of your right leanings....
I only looked at snippets, and without context, I think I might have read more into it than what it was, if I am to believe you.
I have 2 questions maybe you can answer, yes?
1. Why was the IT guy given immunity then if it/he wasn't at issue?
2. Regarding where Comey said he could prove no intent. Isn't the charge, Murder 1, based on "intent" of premeditation, where a trial and evidenced is weighed by a jury, falling short of its "intent", then the charged is released from of prosecution.....
Not innocent mind you, but they prosecuting party did not meet the threshold of "intentions" to convict on a M1, yes?