TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:I listened to all but about 10% of the hearing today and Comey convinced me. He convinced me 100% Hillary should be prosecuted.

To me, it appears he is has been given marching order and is having to toe the administration line. In other words, it appears an otherwise decent and respected man has caved to the pressure.

Atlas Shrugged-Now Nonfiction

mojo84 wrote:I listened to all but about 10% of the hearing today and Comey convinced me. He convinced me 100% Hillary should be prosecuted.

To me, it appears he is has been given marching order and is having to toe the administration line. In other words, it appears an otherwise decent and respected man has caved to the pressure.

There was no caving by him in his testimony...

Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, told Mr. Comey that it looked as if the end of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton was choreographed, beginning with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s chance meeting last week with Mr. Clinton, and continuing with the F.B.I.’s interview with Mrs. Clinton on Saturday, Mr. Comey’s announcement on Tuesday, and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign appearance with President Obama hours later. Mr. Mica said he did not know what to tell constituents talking about the case in Florida cafes.

Mr. Comey grew red in the face, raising his voice as he answered the congressman. “I hope what you’ll tell the folks in the cafe is: Look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone,” Mr. Comey said. “The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the F.B.I. family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination.”

Clinton's actions and statements are reprehensible but I think FBI Director Comey, also Deputy Attorney General under Bush, is forthright and has little or no incentive to cave in under pressure from the Administration.

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I listened to all but about 10% of the hearing today and Comey convinced me. He convinced me 100% Hillary should be prosecuted.

To me, it appears he is has been given marching order and is having to toe the administration line. In other words, it appears an otherwise decent and respected man has caved to the pressure.

There was no caving by him in his testimony...

Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, told Mr. Comey that it looked as if the end of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton was choreographed, beginning with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s chance meeting last week with Mr. Clinton, and continuing with the F.B.I.’s interview with Mrs. Clinton on Saturday, Mr. Comey’s announcement on Tuesday, and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign appearance with President Obama hours later. Mr. Mica said he did not know what to tell constituents talking about the case in Florida cafes.

Mr. Comey grew red in the face, raising his voice as he answered the congressman. “I hope what you’ll tell the folks in the cafe is: Look me in the eye and listen to what I’m about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone,” Mr. Comey said. “The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the F.B.I. family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination.”

Clinton's actions and statements are reprehensible but I think FBI Director Comey, also Deputy Attorney General under Bush, is forthright and has little or no incentive to cave in under pressure from the Administration.

It's obvious you and I disagree. He made a great case FOR prosecution but he decided not to. The timing of too many elements is also too coincidental.

The entire testimony was hinged upon "intent". How many people are in jail today even though they didn't intend to break the law? Regardless, the entire reason for her to use a private server was so she could avoid the Freedom of Information laws and accountability. Only naivete and willful blindness could lead anyone to any other conclusion.

What happened to: Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Can you imagine any average person offering up a defense of: Yes, I broke the law, but I didn't mean to?

This ruling supports the contention I've had all along.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -huge-way/

The D.C. Circuit held in its decision that work email stored privately is still subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. The whole point of FOIA, the court said, is to provide transparency on public officials' behavior while in office. Circumventing that by hosting government documents on non-governmental servers defeats that purpose, Judge David Sentelle said.

Abraham wrote:What happened to: Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Can you imagine any average person offering up a defense of: Yes, I broke the law, but I didn't mean to?

Yeah, apparently that works now.

mojo84 wrote:This ruling supports the contention I've had all along.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -huge-way/

The D.C. Circuit held in its decision that work email stored privately is still subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. The whole point of FOIA, the court said, is to provide transparency on public officials' behavior while in office. Circumventing that by hosting government documents on non-governmental servers defeats that purpose, Judge David Sentelle said.

Too bad her lawyers wiped all the servers (with a cloth...), before the FOIA information got produced.

ScottDLS wrote:

mojo84 wrote:This ruling supports the contention I've had all along.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -huge-way/

The D.C. Circuit held in its decision that work email stored privately is still subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. The whole point of FOIA, the court said, is to provide transparency on public officials' behavior while in office. Circumventing that by hosting government documents on non-governmental servers defeats that purpose, Judge David Sentelle said.

Too bad her lawyers wiped all the servers (with a cloth...), before the FOIA information got produced.

The point is, Comey's contention there was no "criminal intent" involved is completely wrong. The fact it was set up that way and then wiped clean establishes that.

Abraham wrote:What happened to: Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Can you imagine any average person offering up a defense of: Yes, I broke the law, but I didn't mean to?

I don't think that is what it depends on.

What Comey seemed to have turned on is that the statute criminalizing gross negligence has never been used in the absence of one of the several circumstances he listed, and it has long been doubted whether the statute is even Constitutional. This may not have been the decision you or I expected, as few of us would have opportunity to be aware of those factors.

What if Comey was sincere, objective, his integrity unsullied by any of the wild accusations leveled at him this week?

Had indictments been recommended, a grand jury would have been impanelled to issue those indictments if it chose to do so. If you think the OJ Simpson case was something, the trial of this case would be an even more enormous spectacle. Imagine the "Dream Team" that would have been assembled! Every word, every e-mail, every computer file and byte would be gone over with the finest tooth comb imaginable.

I cannot imagine how or when, or where it would be possible to select a trial jury which would hear the case with the requisite level of due process to which we are all entitled. She might still beat the rap(s) even so.

When Richard Nixon resigned, some people were after his scalp, not, it developed, without considerable justification. When his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him, many were horrified.

From Wikipedia:

"After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt.[8] In 2001, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award to Ford for his pardon of Nixon.[9] In presenting the award to Ford, Senator Ted Kennedy said that he had initially been opposed to the pardon of Nixon, but later stated that history had proved Ford to have made the correct decision.[10]"

It may be that the jury box is not the best way to handle these acts and omissions. The ballot box may be.

JALLEN wrote:

Abraham wrote:What happened to: Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Can you imagine any average person offering up a defense of: Yes, I broke the law, but I didn't mean to?

I don't think that is what it depends on.

What Comey seemed to have turned on is that the statute criminalizing gross negligence has never been used in the absence of one of the several circumstances he listed, and it has long been doubted whether the statute is even Constitutional. This may not have been the decision you or I expected, as few of us would have opportunity to be aware of those factors.

What if Comey was sincere, objective, his integrity unsullied by any of the wild accusations leveled at him this week?

Had indictments been recommended, a grand jury would have been impanelled to issue those indictments if it chose to do so. If you think the OJ Simpson case was something, the trial of this case would be an even more enormous spectacle. Imagine the "Dream Team" that would have been assembled! Every word, every e-mail, every computer file and byte would be gone over with the finest tooth comb imaginable.

I cannot imagine how or when, or where it would be possible to select a trial jury which would hear the case with the requisite level of due process to which we are all entitled. She might still beat the rap(s) even so.

When Richard Nixon resigned, some people were after his scalp, not, it developed, without considerable justification. When his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him, many were horrified.

From Wikipedia:

"After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt.[8] In 2001, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award to Ford for his pardon of Nixon.[9] In presenting the award to Ford, Senator Ted Kennedy said that he had initially been opposed to the pardon of Nixon, but later stated that history had proved Ford to have made the correct decision.[10]"

It may be that the jury box is not the best way to handle these acts and omissions. The ballot box may be.

Too big to prosecute? Some are above the law?

I would have more faith in the ballot box if we had a stronger candidate and it wasn't for the electoral college.

Surely, no democrats have ever stolen elections...

Man. I generally turn on Fox news for a couple of hours before lunchtime, but I simply cannot watch anymore today. First it was the infuriatingly comical complete waste of taxpayer money that was Loretta Lynch "testifying" before the House Judiciary Committee, and now it's Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary while she stands there looking like a perpetual bobble-head with a range of motion limited to up and down only. She's nodding nonstop, punctuated by her occasional applause. She's absolutely loving this.

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I listened to all but about 10% of the hearing today and Comey convinced me. He convinced me 100% Hillary should be prosecuted.

To me, it appears he is has been given marching order and is having to toe the administration line. In other words, it appears an otherwise decent and respected man has caved to the pressure.

There was no caving by him in his testimony...
snip....

Perhaps you can tell me why her testimony given to the FBI was not under oath. The fix was in.

I just keep wondering why in these 50 United States there isn't one single "unreasonable" Federal Prosecutor who will stand up and say "I'll prosecute that case!"