Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, July 5. 2016

Breaking: To Nobody's Surprise, the FBI Recommends Against Bringing Charges

We all knew it wasn't going to happen.  It's the how it didn't happen that is most unsurprising.  "Lack of malicious intent."


Nothing to see here, right?


We all know she's clean as a whistle.


 Our nation has been unique in that it rarely prosecutes politicians for crimes related to the execution of official duties.  There is a good reason for this, since that kind of prosecution can often be driven by political goals and outcomes (a hallmark of banana republics and third world nations).  However, in this case, there is a clear dereliction of duty and, in my mind, benign neglect (the best you can say about her behavior) is the same as malicious intent.  In fact, benign neglect in any corporate situation can and will get you fired.


But government is not a corporate environment.  Which is why I hold politicians and government in such low regard. 


The real problem I have to face here in NYC is the stupidity of her supporters who say "The FBI says she's not guilty."  No, they didn't.  They just didn't feel the case would derive an outcome worthy of taking it to court, but clearly pointed out that she engaged in plenty of illegal activity.  Just not maliciously.  I'll remember that next time I decide to not pay my taxes.


Posted by Bulldog in Politics at 12:16 | Comments (38) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Strangely, the law includes carelessness with classified material. You do not need to have malicious intent in order to get hammered. Otherwise, everyone would be taking home classified material right and left.

The only guess I have for this strange conclusion by the supposedly 'above reproach' Comey is that the email case was the weaker of the two cases. He has more on her for corruption and pay-to-play with the Clinton Foundation and can bury her with that.

But for now, Trump can make all kinds of hay with this. The meeting with Lynch and Bill was so poorly timed. To any normal person it looks like the fix is in.

Most do not know that Comey is not a Democrat, Obama-loving guy. They see him as part of a corrupt government system that is covering up for criminal behavior at the highest levels of government.
#1 MissT on 2016-07-05 12:31 (Reply)
Yep - I handled many a classified message back in the day. The penalties for mishandling them were exactly the same - intentional or unintentional.

One law for me, another for thee.

Sorry to hear that you still harbor delusions that the FBI is actually going to do something about the Clinton crime family.
#1.1 NJSoldier on 2016-07-05 14:17 (Reply)
18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) doesn't count as rule of law? America just died.
#2 gman on 2016-07-05 12:39 (Reply)
Time for some brave conservative to introduce the Hillary Clinton Personal Email Server Bill to explicitly outlaw such behavior by any person in the administration in the future.
#3 Ghost Rider on 2016-07-05 12:52 (Reply)
I think everyone who is paying attention knows Hillary intentionally hid her activities because some of them were illegal and questionable. I, and all Americans cannot know if the FBI is correct and that they truly don't have enough to warrant a prosecution so for that reason I believe the evidence should be released to the public. Let the FBI and the DOJ come clean and tell us what they have so that we can regain confidence in them OR affirm that the fix was in. I think the citizens deserve no less even if she were not running for president but especially because she is running for president. Release it all. What the hell the Russians, Chinese and Wikileaks has it all anyway why shouldn't we?
#4 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-07-05 12:53 (Reply)
"I think the citizens deserve no less..."
--------------------
Catch up.
The Gov't. just told you that the citizens deserve nothing.
It hurts, I know.
#4.1 Alan Robertson on 2016-07-05 16:24 (Reply)
I expected her to skate, but I had hoped for integrity from the FBI. They are obviously just another tentacle of the criminal organization calling itself the Democratic Party.

Saw this yesterday.

QUOTE:
People assumed that the law mattered, that the same rules applied to everyone. That duly enacted laws would be enforced equally until repealed. That the Constitution set the foundation and that its guarantees would be honored even if we disliked the result in a particular case. But that’s not our country today.

The idea of the rule of law today is a lie. There is no law. There is no justice. There are only lies.


http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/04/you-owe-them-nothing--not-respect-not-loyalty-not-obedience-n2186865
#5 feeblemind on 2016-07-05 13:00 (Reply)
For so long, I kept reading that Comey was a good man. That he was a man of character. That he would do his job.

In the end we find that Comey is a small man. A coward that took the easy way out lest he face the wrath of the media and the Democratic Party.

Or maybe they had the dirt on him and threatened to blackmail him?

Or he was the Democrats toady all along?
#6 feeblemind on 2016-07-05 13:22 (Reply)
When have the Clintons' not done anything that was intentional and malicious?
#7 Steve Bailey on 2016-07-05 13:28 (Reply)
Well, that's it for me. I regret the 24 years I spent wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, the service I performed for this nation and its people. More, I begrudge the fact that I spent my youth serving. While I - and a large number of my generation - were out there on the battlefield being shot at and shooting other people, etc. etc., the rest of you were back here letting the Communists, the utterly clueless and the horribly corrupt take over the nation. I will not vote in any elections again. I will not contribute to this nation one iota of my time, treasure or effort. I will not support or oppose any political party or platform, anywhere, in any media or any manner. I will spend my remaining years in making myself and my family happy. Fortunately, I don't have as many years left as I've already lived. I don't know any curse sufficiently dire for pronouncing on all those lackwits, cowards and time-servers who allowed this to happen, so I won't waste any more time on this. I quit. Y'all made your bed, you all can sleep in it.
#8 Ike on 2016-07-05 13:33 (Reply)
My thoughts, too. I am now wondering if I can freely discuss what I did while in the NSA without fear of prosecution. I was told that I could not divulge anything for 50 years. Guess that's out the window if my intentions are 'good' and I just want to tell my family and friends all about my time in a SCIF and the work we did?

The sad part is I already see people online who believe this junk. That truly believe nothing wrong happened and the FBI is speaking the truth. I don't know who these people are that they could be that blind. I find it sad and disturbing.

Nixon's misdeeds are so incredibly minor compared to this. How can any Democrat voters hold his head up today and be proud of the Obama Administration, be happy to vote for Hillary and believe nothing is wrong with our government?
#8.1 MissT on 2016-07-05 13:39 (Reply)
As much as I believe she should have been indicted (there seems to be more than enough to indict her on any number of charges, even if the email server charge is least among them - she lied to an investigator, and she deleted material that was under subpoena, didn't she?), the FBI may have decided to split the baby.

Recognizing the difficulty of bringing a case, between a sympathetic population, a friendly AG, and the potential for cries of partisanship by the FBI, Comey may actually have realized the best solution is to not bring a case - and let it play out in the court of public opinion.

An indictment would have cost tons of money and probably (as he guessed) not yielded a conviction. It's very rare to see a politician break the law and go to jail.

Comey may realize he's saving the government money, saving his department public embarrassment, and avoiding a larger potential political problem by simply saying "you clearly screwed up very badly and probably did commit crimes in the process, but we aren't going to benefit our nation by pursuing this."

Maybe. I'm not saying that's what I think happened, just that it's an option and while she most definitely should be brought to trial, Comey also sees any trial would likely occur AFTER the election - at a point in time when she may very well be President, sparking a Constitutional crisis.

I'm hoping that's the thought process, because it's the only rational and justifiable one I can think of. I'm not saying it's the right one. It's just the best one.

All other scenarios are too ugly to even discuss, and speak to a deeper, deadlier corruption at the heart of our nation. We may very well be in our death spiral.
#9 Bulldog on 2016-07-05 13:36 (Reply)
I usually prefer to see this kind of thing played out in the court of public opinion rather than in the criminal courts. In cases of ambiguous intent, or what will pass for ambiguous intent in the public's mind, nothing good seems to come of criminal trials of political figures. I'm discouraged about the prospects for a public-opinion trial on this one, of course, because the media are all in for Clinton. It's galling, of course, to recognize that someone like Scooter Libby can be railroaded and someone like Clinton gets a pass, but there you are.

I suspect Clinton's supporters will all see a "nothing burger," as Z does. The great mushy middle, who knows? Many of them will never hear more than "the FBI cleared her." They'll never even read the part about how the FBI concluded she lied through her teeth. Actually, they must already know she lies as she breathes, and don't much care, because she "fights for us" and "cares about people like me."

And, because we could not coalesce around a more suitable candidate in the primary process, Trump is who we've got as our alternative to her. I will vote for him, by the way.
#9.1 Texan99 on 2016-07-06 09:11 (Reply)
Yeah, well we all know Z lives in a basement somewhere and has been divorced from reality for a lifetime...
#9.1.1 Bulldog on 2016-07-06 09:49 (Reply)
Texan99: I suspect Clinton's supporters will all see a "nothing burger," as Z does.

That this was another big nothing-burger is borne out by Comey's decision to recommend against filing charges. That the State Department, and the U.S. security apparatus, hasn't kept pace with technological change is clearly an ongoing problem.
#9.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-07-06 10:16 (Reply)
We are in a Constitutional Crisis already Bulldog. At best, Comey just kicked the can down the road, and sullied the reputation of the FBI in the process.
#10 ron snyder on 2016-07-05 13:43 (Reply)
Anybody want to drink with me?
#11 ama on 2016-07-05 13:46 (Reply)
I don't drink... but I am thinking of taking it up.
#11.1 Bradley on 2016-07-05 15:28 (Reply)
I know the answer but can't Comey (or Hillary, or somebody) for gross negligence or subverting justice or something? I mean Comey spelled out violations to a criminal statute and then decides she wouldn't be prosecuted by a 'reasonable" prosecutor. It seems to me that his job is to gather evidence and not decide if a prosecutor would take that evidence to trial.
#12 mudbug on 2016-07-05 13:52 (Reply)
QUOTE:
It seems to me that his job is to gather evidence and not decide if a prosecutor would take that evidence to trial.


Precisely, mudbug.
#12.1 feeblemind on 2016-07-05 14:08 (Reply)
Yes - they got to him. Some combination of threats and bribes.
#12.2 NJSoldier on 2016-07-05 14:21 (Reply)
Comey was supposed to be a stand up guy. That seems not to be the case now. We may never know why he punted. He could have been "gotten to" or he might have thought about other people (like Ron Brown and John Ashe) or he could have just decided the sh*t storm that would have resulted if he recommended the Justice Department prosecute the Hildabeast would not have been worth it.

What we do know is that if he had been investigating a Republican, there would not be a sh*t storm and he wouldn't have to consider what happened to others who were going to bear witness against the Clintons.
#12.2.1 mudbug on 2016-07-05 15:52 (Reply)
Of course, "lack of malicious intent" isn't the standard. The standard is simply, did she do it? These are strict liability crimes, because of the importance of national security concerns you are presumed to know that you can't do this. Essentially the FBI director said she is guilty, but we are not allowed to prosecute her because she is Hillary and is in bed with Obama and Lynch.

This demonstrates all the more we need to to elect Trump, if only because his Justice Department WILL try the Clintons and throw them in prison.

"Our nation has been unique in that it rarely prosecutes politicians for crimes related to the execution of official duties."

Actually, Richard Nixon looks like a saint compared to what is going on every day in Washington now. He faced being removed from office and going to prison but back then people at least had the honor to resign when they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The major difference between then and now is that the media are part of the corruption, and Congress is either too weak/corrupt to do anything. And Bill Clinton changed the paradigm by simply refusing to resign, even though he was impeached and eventually disbarred from practicing law for unethical conduct.
#13 JIm on 2016-07-05 14:15 (Reply)
My point is that there are many political situations which did not result in criminal prosecution, but probably should have. Not the least of which is Charlie Rangel's misdeeds.

While it's true Nixon resigned, it's doubtful he'd have gone to prison, let alone faced trial. Ford took what I believe is the right step by pardoning him. Why? Because each new leader pursuing a political vendetta is dangerous to a republic's management.

Other cases? Barney Frank being blissfullly unaware of the prostitution ring run out of his apartment. A bit different in that it was his naivete and obtuseness which saved him, and it wasn't an official duty which was breached.

Gerry Studds and Daniel Crane - again, not execution of official duties, but heinous crimes nonetheless.

Here's a list of expelled, censured, and reprimanded Senators and Representatives. I'm no Republican, but it astounding how many of these were Democrats.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded

Criminal behavior is common on both sides of the aisle. Republicans tend to step down. Democrats tend to be shameless, or manipulate the law.
#13.1 Bulldog on 2016-07-05 14:27 (Reply)
I follow your thinking Bulldog, but as mudbug, notes, whether or not to prosecute was not his call to make. He was merely to decide whether there was evidence of a crime.

His convoluted thinking reminds me of Justice Roberts rationalization for 0bamacare.

He should have let the DOJ make the call.
#13.1.1 feeblemind on 2016-07-05 14:47 (Reply)
Technically he hasn't made the call. Only a recommendation - which is part of his job.

He didn't make the decision to not prosecute. That's still the AG's office's job. But the implication here is that the AG won't bring charges, and Comey knows that.

I actually liked Roberts' rationalization - he clarified the Commerce Clause, something which needed to be done desperately, and he clarified it in a manner which is consistent with a strict Constitutional reading. His problem, such as it is, was that he allowed Obama to call it a tax, which is Constitutional. Obama didn't care what he called it. He didn't want to call it a tax because it ruins his otherwise mediocre record on tax increases, positioning him as a high-tax guy. But he still gets what he wanted. Roberts, too, was using his personal judgment on what is right and wrong to guide his decision...and that's where I disagreed with him on approving the tax.

This is something quite different. Comey has every right to recommend not bringing charges (though I'm still at a loss as to why he felt it best and still think it's to protect the FBI from political fallout). But I think he did it in a particularly unusual way, basically saying "yeah, she's guilty. But she didn't mean it, so it's not like she was doing anything wrong." THAT is where I think he went off the rails, because unlike Roberts - who should invoke a certain amount of personal ethics in his decisions - Comey is supposed to adhere to the strict letter of the law. And as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the law which says intent is meaningful.

"Officer, I know I was going 90, but I didn't intend to go over 55."
"Officer, I know I killed him, but I only intended to tap him lightly on the head with the bat."
"Officer, I know I was DUI, but I only intended to drink til I was .015 BAL."

We're not differing what we believe, we're differing in semantics. It was Comey's call to recommend either way on what to do - it's just shocking the path he chose....
#13.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2016-07-05 16:20 (Reply)
Thanks for the reply Bulldog. I see your POV more clearly now.
#13.1.1.1.1 feeblemind on 2016-07-05 16:35 (Reply)
Technically he hasn't made the call. Only a recommendation - which is part of his job.

He didn't make the decision to not prosecute. That's still the AG's office's job. But the implication here is that the AG won't bring charges, and Comey knows that.

I don't know if a 'reasonable prosecutor' would prosecute Dame Hillary. I've heard several say flatly they would. Regardless, I think he should have kept his mouth shut about something that was not for him to decide. His statement is just cover for Lynch to ignore the evidence that Comey found - who admittedly, was going to ignore it anyway - but in my view, it was a political comment to give Lynch cover.
#13.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-07-05 17:29 (Reply)
I think Roberts' decision on Obamacare is one of the worst ever written. The Court first ruled that Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause to require people to buy insurance. If Obamacare failed the Commerce Clause, that is the end of the discussion. Obamacare was not valid.

But instead, he said that even though it is unlawful, there is still power of Congress to force people to follow it by imposing a tax/penalty on them if they don't, under the Taxing Clause. Now if that isn't an abuse of power, I don't know what is. And also fails the unconstitutional conditions test enunciated in California Coastal Commission v. Nollan and numerous other cases. If government cannot legally do something directly, it cannot do so indirectly by imposing penalties or improper conditions for not doing so.

Imagine the sweeping rationale of this. Let's say that Congress passes a law to force you to spy on your neighbors and turn them into the government for then being rounded up and sent to the camps. You could argue this is unconstitutional on any number of grounds. But if the law is simply rewritten to say if you don't this, the government can then "tax" you by taking all your property away, that would pass the Roberts test.
#13.1.1.1.3 Jim on 2016-07-06 14:14 (Reply)
Oh good! That means the Russians and the Chinese have to give all that information back now, right?
#14 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-07-05 15:27 (Reply)
I think Comey decided right.
Her defense was that she was a ditzy woman who doesn't understand anything tech.
#15 BD on 2016-07-05 15:35 (Reply)
God help us now, because now there's no other recourse.
#16 fiftyville on 2016-07-05 15:45 (Reply)
I believe you are correct. Today is a very sad day.
#16.1 annieoakley on 2016-07-05 16:10 (Reply)
The recourse now is for someone to impeach Comey; as previous commenters here have noted, he has not done his "fiduciary" duty to the country. He has overstepped his bounds, making a decision that's not his to make. Why? Incompetence, malice, threats, or bribes?

Impeach him for Breach of Duties; his motivations will be center stage in those proceedings.

Part of me hopes he is being threatened; part of me hopes that he has knowledge that Roberts was threatened vis-a-vis Obamacare.
#16.2 steve nyc on 2016-07-05 18:34 (Reply)
When President Chirac was being given a run for his money from Le Pen père during the French presidential elections, a popular slogan was: "Votez escroc pas fascho".

Essentially: "Vote for the crook (Chirac) not the fascist (Le Pen)".

Maybe Hillary's campaign could use that in some modified form: "Vote for the crook not the crank" or something along that line.

One thing is for sure. Prepare yourselves for months of Democrat dissembling as her supporters attempt to rationalize her "proven leadership" with her "proven carelessness".
#17 JJM on 2016-07-05 19:55 (Reply)
The fix is in. I doubt the gross malfeasance will be noticed enough to greatly affect public opinion and the election, because after all: "There's nothing to see here folks, move along."

I'm not so much worried about myself as my grandchildren and children about the loss of law and order.

It was a fun country while it lasted.

PS...what she did was in violation of all government rules on classified material. You simply don't let anyone not authorized have access. It's that simple.

BD, sadly, you're right. Public officials don't face the same repercussions as those in the private sector.
#18 Mark on 2016-07-05 20:07 (Reply)
Rumour has it that Comey was the one who nailed Scooter Libbey.

Oh. The irony.
#19 feeblemind on 2016-07-05 20:23 (Reply)
Nothing burger.
#20 Zachriel on 2016-07-05 22:50 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.