After the testimony today in front of a House committee, I’ve had several points I’d like to make;
One, I was wrong. Or as Fonzie used to say in Happy days, I was wroo…I was wrooa…I was wrooo… Boy this is hard!
I pride myself in reading people. I will stand by my statement that Comey looks like he was trying to do the right thing in an impossible situation. But he was NOT doing the best thing.
Two, I stand corrected in my position that he took the interview from HRC to avoid allowing FBI agents to be potentially damaged. That was what was reported, but not what turned out to be true.
What we learned as as many as five FBI agents interviewed HRC (which is three too many) and they DID NOT RECORD her testimony- which is strange considering how high profile the case is. Obviously, they succumbed to political pressure. They did not place her under oath, which is fine- lying to the FBI is still a crime as he pointed out. But did she even talk? And what did she say? How many DOJ lawyers were there? What did they allow? How many defense attorneys were there? How many times did they object? Hillary could have walked in, identified herself and never said another word about the case for three and a half hours for all we know! Or plead the fifth over a hundred times like her IT guy! (I say this after watching the reenactments of the civil depos involving the same motley crew! Seriously, take the time to watch!)
Three, that when Comey was grilled today he revealed himself as a lawyer first and a man of principal second and it showed. His defense of Hillary can be summed up like this- Hillary Rodham Clinton was not charged with a crime because she’s STUPID!
Hillary’s defense as explained by Comey was-
“I didn’t know it was a crime because little old me doesn’t understand how this email-ie thing works and a little confused about the whole if I put classified material on a private server is that a crime or a convenience? And this little black box that talks to me like magic that I don’t know how to work, a “blacknoodle” or “blueberry”? They can ‘hack it’… like with an axe? ”
Then he says she actually wasn’t really up on what is classified and how to tell if it is classified, so how can you hold her responsible for sending it around. I know, I think I saw some of Chaffetz’s brain cells just go- pop!
But she wants to be the head of the most powerful and sophisticated nation in the world? Help me out here!
Fourth, what we really learned is if you are Hillary Rodham Clinton (and staff) and you are caught doing a crime – don’t confess, don’t admit, acted shocked and demand David Kendall to be your lawyer. The politicized FBI will fold like a cheap suitcase.
I kid you not. I was there, I heard it. In four and a half hours of testimony (half wasted by letting democrats talk about zika and black lives matter issues of course) we come to the conclusion that the fix was always in. My friends warned me, but I had faith in the system. No longer. And boy, that hurt.
We witnessed Trey Gowdy just GLARING at Comey as he walks Comey through the whole how you build a case for “intent” method- dragging Comey along, like he was a first year law student with dementia, as Comey kept trying to PROTECT Hillary and his decision (now and forever attached at the hip). It was insightful. And I kept thinking of SEC violation cases where the whole case can be built on emails and intentional deletion of data. Or half of the cases I worked where the bad guy didn’t confess and I had to put a case together where I had to prove this guy, committed this crime, at this time, and nobody else could have done it. Comey’s conclusion was she did it, during this period, along with her buddies, but there was no crime committed because the legal statute written for this very offense didn’t apply to Hillary. BUT…it will for the next guy who tries it, not named Clinton of course.
One committee member pointed out Comey killed off this statute completely, which didn’t seem to bother Comey. He’s a free citizen or something…not sure. I’m betting some of his prior convicted defendants are slapping their collective foreheads over this comment. In the days to come, we’ll see them surface I’m sure.
Comey also stated that nobody on her staff was going to be held accountable because they were apparently struck stupid too. I swear… Not even the IT guy, who got immunity, but Comey wasn’t sure for what exactly. (??)
In fact, when pressed, we find Comey made the decision not to prosecute without talking to all of the agents who interviewed Hillary. Or reviewing her testimony to see if she lied. He said all he cared about was she didn’t lie to the FBI. Congress and the public wasn’t his deal, y’know!
Comey went to a lot of trouble explaining that the hundred year old federal statute was no longer applicable because nobody was really prosecuted for it. I ask this- maybe that’s because nobody was as ballsy as Hillary? It’s like the statue was written a hundred years ago with Hillary in mind! Of course he was asked if the age of the statute made it inapplicable and Comey actually kind of nodded yes, BUT if anyone tried it in the future, they’d be prosecuted. Seriously… you can’t make it up.
My friend said it is all theater and doesn’t matter. I think it matters a great deal as events unfold and we begin to realize how this mess- another Clinton mess- impacts all of us.
Already, defense attorneys are looking forward to using what they call “the Hillary defense” for their clients who are suffering security issues and prosecutions.
The FBI recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton and her staff on charges of mishandling classified information will give those accused of flouting national security rules a new line of defense even as it highlights a dual standard in how senior government officials are treated, several experts said Wednesday.
FBI Director James Comey recommended Tuesday that no charges be filed against Clinton or her team for their handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, even though she was “extremely careless” in using a private email address and servers. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Wednesday that she agreed with Comey’s assessment.
Lawyers who specialize in representing government and military officials who’ve had security clearances revoked said Comey’s recommendation offered them a new tactic in seeking to rehabilitate their clients, especially if Clinton is elected president in November.
“I intend to use the Hillary defense,” said Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer whose firm handles dozens of cases a year involving national security clearances. “I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar.”
He added, “We’ve had people lose 20-year careers for doing less than what she did.”
Mark F. Riley, a former military intelligence officer who became a lawyer defending those accused of national security violations, said he, too, would invoke the Clinton recommendation.
“I’m going to use it every chance I get, particularly in oral arguments. I’m going to bring it up over and over and over,” Riley said, adding that he thinks Clinton and her team engaged in “an egregious, egregious security violation.”
“Any other person would have had their security clearance revoked,” he said.
Hey, that’s something new. Usually if you are a prominent politician you get a Navy ship named after you, not a legal defense. But we live in interesting times for sure!
Several committee members did a good job. Jason Chaffetz was outstanding as he wound up Comey several times in a friendly way. His questions were to the point and he asked some crucial ones. Did HRC knowingly give classified material to non cleared people? (That’s a crime folks.) Comey looked pained, answering with “yes…but”. How many people saw the files? Maybe ten IT people who handled the servers, several lawyers she gave the files to, but Comey said (and again I kid you not!) that she didn’t expect them to actually read the emails! WHAT??! But the lawyers did read them didn’t they as part of the vetting? Didn’t they, after receiving a request by Congress, willfully destroy thousands of work related documents in a manner making them unrecoverable? Isn’t that a crime called obstruction of justice?
Are you going to prosecute them for it?
Nothing but crickets.
It was classic.
Seriously, it was painful to watch our Republic unwind in hi-def. I’m sure there have been hundreds if not thousands of backroom deals cut over during our history. But there is a rule (was a rule)- if you get caught out in the open, just have to take the lick.
Hillary has rewritten that rule and I encourage any Republican or Democrat to ignore calls for resignation from office regardless of their crime. Just hold a press conference, hold up a placard with Hillary and Comey’s face on it and point. Then walk off.
Comey held his own, but he’s a lawyer and long ago lost his sense of embarrassment.
It was pointed out there was a incident where HRC asked for her staff to strip the classified information out of a document and send it to her. Now pay attention. Hillary is being portrayed by the the head of the FBI as being clueless about classified document rules in order to avoid “willful intent”. However, at the same time she is commanding her staff to remove classified material from a document, or at least taking off the headings of those documents so they don’t look classified, in order to get them to email the docs to her on her private server. So, that begs the question- How does she know if that was done if she can’t recognize what is a classified document or not because SHE’S STUPID!?
It wasn’t a total waste of time. In fact, if you care about your nation, I would highly recommend you watch the testimony- skipping through the democrat bullhockey- and listen closely. Because this is how the rule of law dies.
Over at Townhall, one author sums up a million voices.
Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. It is high time to declare our personal independence from any remnant of obligation to those who have spit upon the rule of law. We owe them nothing – not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.
Think about it. If you are out driving at 3 a.m., do you stop at a stop sign when there’s no one coming? Of course you do. You don’t need a cop to be there to make you stop. You do it voluntarily because this is America and America is a country where obeying the law is the right thing to do because the law was justly made and is justly applied. Or it used to be.
The law mattered. It applied equally to everyone. We demanded that it did, all of us – politicians, the media, and regular citizens. Oh, there were mistakes and miscarriages of justice but they weren’t common and they weren’t celebrated – they were universally reviled. And, more importantly, they weren’t part and parcel of the ideology of one particular party. There was once a time where you could imagine a Democrat scandal where the media actually called for the head of the Democrat instead of deploying to cover it up.
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.
Hillary Clinton is manifestly guilty of multiple felonies. Her fans deny it half-heartedly, but mostly out of habit – in the end, it’s fine with them if she’s a felon. They don’t care. It’s just some law. What’s the big deal? It doesn’t matter that anyone else would be in jail right now for doing a fraction of what she did. But the law is not important. Justice is not important.
The attorney general secretly canoodles with the husband of the subject of criminal investigation by her own department and the president, the enforcer of our laws, shrugs. The media, the challenger of the powerful, smirks. They rub our noses in their contempt for the law. And by doing so, demonstrate their contempt for us.
Lastly, I caution the elites, who are apparently building private compounds on islands and out in the middle of nowhere, that a people with no voice is dangerous. A smart ruler sacrifices a royal every once in a while in order to remain in good graces with the peasants. It’s just smart business.
(To that point, Comey stated that it would have been unfair to unbox an old statute- that Hillary obviously violated- because of her singular celebrity status. What that says is that law, whether he thinks it valid or not, does not apply to her because of WHO she is. But leaving out there that if it were someone unknown that consideration would not be made. This makes the argument from Townhall true.)
I was convinced Obama grasped that and was going to cut the rope on the lifeboat setting HRC adrift. But I was wrong. Just like the hundreds of “smarter than the masses” leaders throughout history, they just can’t see how precariously close to the edge they are.
The latest popular meme summarizes how people feel.
Seriously, what are they thinking?