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.  

verslagen1 wrote on 07/06/16 at 13:53:44:

I'm the original fair and balanced guy......

1. Why was the IT guy given immunity then if it/he wasn't at issue?

He was asked that and said two things. 1) he couldn't go into too much detail of the specifics of the immunity deal for confidentiality reasons.
2) the immunity deal was granted for the same reasons it's granted in other cases, he said they give immunity when they feel there is no other way to get the information. I assume what he can't say is the guy's attorney believed Hilary would be prosecuted and convicted so he was trying to protect his client and got the best deal for him. If Hilary had been convicted, the IT guy could have been brought up on charges as well because I assume he must have signed the same documents as Hilary with regards to acknowledging he would follow protocol with regards to classified documents. If he signed that and set up a separate server, he would have potentially been guilty like her.


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?  

A prosecutor brings charges when he believes evidence exists a crime was committed. Because of the language of the law, he had to show intent. In his opinion, he says they found no evidence of intent. This is where I disagree with him to a certain degree. I think the very act of setting up a separate server is intent to retain classified documents outside of their approved domicile.

As I read some more and think about it, my 75% agreement is dropping to around 55%. I think he should have recommended the DOJ prosecute simply because the very act of setting up an user account on a non-government server is the same as taking classified documents home and leaving them in your house.

Now our friend Sew will likely want to argue the false comparison that other Secy of States did the same, but that's not entirely true. No one went to the trouble to set up a SERVER at their home. As Comey pointed out, the security on her home server was not even as good as what's on publicly available domiciles like Gmail. No one has done what Hilary did and the more I think about it, that in and of itself is enough to pursue further.

But, Hilary is not out of hot water just yet. She testified under oath to Congress she 1) never sent classified emails which the investigation proves she did.  2) She told congress she set the server up because she only used one device, but in fact during the investigation it was discovered she used multiple ones.  3) She said no official emails were deleted when in fact 110 'work' emails were recovered that she thought were deleted. Comey said if asked, the FBI would be obliged to investigate potential charges of perjury before a congressional committee.

I'm afraid Comey, who seems like a good guy, is going to be yet another soul sacrificed on the altar of Clinton.

Is Charles Krauthamer of the Washington Post as Savage rider reading our posts because I'm reading the paper this morning and his column is exactly what I said. He compared John Roberts Obamacare decision and Comey's decision just like I was thinking. Comey did not want to be the one to decide who the President of the United States is.

I guess I should quit my job and go write for a paper...... not.

Radio show caller said

Comey let her slide, But, laid out Tons of reasons why she should be indicted. Typically they don't explain what they found, they just say they are not taking action. Comey stressed that a Reasonable prosecutor wouldn't go forward. Really? Having SEEN them go after others with less, what is it that makes it Reasonable to Not go forward? Well, IF she is indicted, Obama just pardons her..
Once Lynch compromised the whole thing, what options were left?
The caller said that he thinks Comey could see that an indictment would go nowhere and laid out why she Should be indicted.. And the only way she is possibly ever going to be held accountable is for Trump to win, then He see to it that she gets what is coming to her.
Not Comeys words, but the best guess as to why.

But, Comey was involved in other things that Somehow managed to
Magically Work Out for a Clinton.  
The system is rigged, obviously enough.

I didnt see your points or I would have.

Well, they were investigating and needed info from him. Like I said, I think the guy's lawyer was worried so he asked for immunity and got it.
They asked him questions and I assume that's where they got all the info about how poorly the server was set up.

I imagine that happens. They give someone immunity, interview them, but turns out their info didn't end up being the difference.