Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:No I don't actually. I don't believe she would have even if the FBI recommended it. In any case, she will be forced into the court of public opinion and that of her peers, which will put her into a uncomfortable position. It also just might keep her from any other official position in the future.

It insulates her a bit, actually. "The FBI director recommended no indictment. I followed his recommendation, as I said I would."

Things may change big time here soon. The AG and Comey will be in hearings before Congress shortly. Dependent upon how that goes the AG may have no choice but to bring charges due to public pressure.

I don't think so. The establishment has chosen Hillary. Its at least 60 40 she's the next POTUS. You go home with the champion.

Quote:Things may change big time here soon. The AG and Comey will be in hearings before Congress shortly. Dependent upon how that goes the AG may have no choice but to bring charges due to public pressure.

Pressure from who? The only thing establishment Republicans hate more than Clinton is Trump. She's walking away from this one. Never mind that the FBI director laid out a rock solid case for indictment then trollfaced us at the end.

Quote:I'll give it a shot. (the word is "engaged" by the way).  To be clear, I have no law degree, and the only guy around here I know that does seems to stick to football.

 

It means that had they caught this activity before the Secretary and staff left office, there would have been administrative sanctions (possible firings and loss of credentials). 

 

There still wouldn't have been any legal charges, because in Comey's opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would attempt to try the case.

 

Because no one has ever been tried and found guilty in a similar situation?



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05...n-classifi

Quote:Things may change big time here soon. The AG and Comey will be in hearings before Congress shortly. Dependent upon how that goes the AG may have no choice but to bring charges due to public pressure.

 

 

Quote:I don't think so. The establishment has chosen Hillary. Its at least 60 40 she's the next POTUS. You go home with the champion.

 

Things may change, but not soon.  I see more technical oversight of all government agencies in the near future, hopefully by guys like JIB.

 

Yes, congress will drag the AG and Comey into hearings to scold them and build political theater in hopes of helping electing Donald Trump, but it's going to go about as well as the Clinton Benghazi Hearings, which were an absolute failure in their goal.  As for jj's conspiracy theory, it's right in line with the other partisan jargon that always pops up when you mention the name "Clinton" to some people.  When you go "Vince Foster" right away, it's a dead giveaway that you're not going to listen to anything the FBI director says.  Like the Anchorman said, you've got your mind made up about these folks.

 

Clinton haters, a solid 10 - 20% of the population, lost their 3rd battle in 2016 yesterday.  The first battle was when Hillary owned the Benghazi hearings, and the second was when anger got the best of the Republican party and they nominated Donald.  Hillary under indictment would have a HELL of a time winning in November, even against an orange neophyte with a bad haircut trying to tweet his way to the presidency. 

 

It comes full circle to "you mad, bro?", and, yes, yes they are.

 

Trying to stay on point:  The OP was, ultimately, wrong.  This IS what rule of law looks like.  The director had a job to do, did it, offered the opinion of the agency he serves, which is, by the way, a law enforcement organization.  The following Washington Post article sums up why Comey made his recommendation:

 

WP article on why Comey did not recommend indictment

 

The legal precedent just isn't there for an indictment.  The article also does a good job of differentiating the Patraeus case from the Clinton email case.

 

One thing I will admit:  Comey slammed Hillary and her department so severely yesterday before finally reaching the conclusion not to indict, that I believe it raised a great deal of confusion.  After about 3 minutes in, I was sure he was going to recommend prosecution, and Hillary's goose was cooked.  After exposing the litany of wrongdoing, within one final paragraph, he explained why prosecuting would be a waste of time:

 

From the WP article:

 

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

 

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

 

The bolded text explains his decision.

Quote:Paul Ryan sure sounds as if he didn't agree with the decision. Dude railed her pretty good.

Paul Ryan is a shill tho. He is just trying to brownie points so he doesn't get thrown out himself.

Quote:Because no one has ever been tried and found guilty in a similar situation?


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05...n-classifi

 

Despite article author Tyler Durden's assertion, I think I'll stick to the career prosecutor's opinion.

Quote:Because no one has ever been tried and found guilty in a similar situation?


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05...n-classifi

Laws for thee, but not for me! Yep. Thats what we all knew, shes getting special treatment. The NWO Globalists are givng us the middle finger.

Quote:Despite article author Tyler Durden's assertion, I think I'll stick to the career prosecutor's opinion.

There are an awful lot of career prosecutors who are saying Comey's laying out the case for what she did wrong, and then doing a 180 with his recommendation is highly questionable.

Quote:There are an awful lot of career prosecutors who are saying Comey's laying out the case for what she did wrong, and then doing a 180 with his recommendation is highly questionable.

Ken Starr?  Katherine Harris?  Alberto Gonzales?

 

I kid, but I really think Comey made the correct choice. 

 

Had he just said, "After reviewing the evidence, I can't recommend indictment because no reasonable prosecutor will take it", I think that would be much worse than his explanation of what his department did.  Comey realized the significance of the department's work and how it pertains to this very strange and historic election cycle, and acted appropriately.  He explained at the beginning of the conference that this detailed explanation was unusual, but warranted given the public interest in, and importance of, the investigation.

 

For the record, the Democratic political machine thinks that a 30 second announcement was more appropriate than Comey's detailed explanation, so you guys have common cause.  Well, except for the ultimate decision (prosecute/not prosecute).

Quote:Ken Starr?  Katherine Harris?  Alberto Gonzales?

 

I kid, but I really think Comey made the correct choice. 

 

Had he just said, "After reviewing the evidence, I can't recommend indictment because no reasonable prosecutor will take it", I think that would be much worse than his explanation of what his department did.  Comey realized the significance of the department's work and how it pertains to this very strange and historic election cycle, and acted appropriately.  He explained at the beginning of the conference that this detailed explanation was unusual, but warranted given the public interest in, and importance of, the investigation.

 

For the record, the Democratic political machine thinks that a 30 second announcement was more appropriate than Comey's detailed explanation, so you guys have common cause.  Well, except for the ultimate decision (prosecute/not prosecute).

Andrew McCarthy and Rudy Giuliani are two. One worked with Comey and the other was his boss.


The fact that he very well may have come to this conclusion because of the political season is yet another red mark. The FBI shouldn't be concerned about the politics. The case he laid out in his presser more than adequately laid out a case for indictment. She violated at least two federal statutes. He had to basically rewrite the law to include intent where it didn't exist previously. The right thing to do would have been to let a jury determine her fate.

Something about this whole thing just kind of "smells funny" to me, so I did a bit of quick research on my own.  It actually leads to more questions for me, and makes me miss investigative journalism the way that it used to be done and published.  Perhaps that should have been my career.

 

First let's take a look at the timeline of recent events.

 

June 27 (Monday) - Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch "happen to be" at the same airport and have an "impromptu" meeting with no press.  This raises flags directly because of the ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton's email situation.

 

July 1st (Friday) - An article published in the New York Times says that Loretta Lynch will "accept" what the FBI and her staff recommends regarding the case.  Specifically she said that she would "defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I.".  This raises a couple of questions regarding "her staff" and the FBI which I'll address below.

 

July 2nd (Saturday) - The FBI interviews Hillary Clinton regarding the investigation.  One thing of note here is that it's a holiday weekend so many people are taking a long weekend off to enjoy the holiday.  Typically the main press, people working for government agencies (FBI), etc. aren't really paying attention.  More attention is typically paid to enjoying a long weekend off to spend with their families, especially the day of the holiday itself.  That leaves Sunday and Monday (the day of the holiday).

 

July 3rd (Sunday) - Stories come out that Barack Obama is going to campaign with Hillary Clinton starting Tuesday (the day after the holiday).  Up to this point, Obama has stayed clear of the election.  Why the sudden change?

 

July 5th (Tuesday) - The FBI tells the media that they are going to hold a press conference, no questions after.  This was unscheduled and a surprise.  It happens at 11:00 AM EST when the announcement that is the subject of this thread is made.

 

My question(s) is, how can the FBI make such a quick determination over a holiday weekend when an interview with subject of the investigation happens on a WEEKEND, specifically a HOLIDAY WEEKEND when most would be off and not working?

 

So I looked into the FBI Director's (James Comey) background.  A couple of things kind of stand out in my mind.

 

First, he wasn't appointed as Director of the FBI under President Bush, he was a Deputy Attorney General.  During his time there, there was certainly some friction involved.  He was actually appointed to his current position by President Obama.

 

This is pretty much looking like a partisan job to me.  Some posters use the "he was a Bush appointee" argument, but that's really not the case.  Look at his background and it's pretty evident that he is pretty much one of the "Democrat Elites" in Washington DC.

 

I did my bit of research this evening, I would suggest others do the same.

Can anyone explain why the current FBI Director (a law enforcement agency) appointed by President Obama is a lawyer with no law enforcement experience?

Quote:So I looked into the FBI Director's (James Comey) background.  A couple of things kind of stand out in my mind.

 

First, he wasn't appointed as Director of the FBI under President Bush, he was a Deputy Attorney General.  During his time there, there was certainly some friction involved.  He was actually appointed to his current position by President Obama.

 

This is pretty much looking like a partisan job to me.  Some posters use the "he was a Bush appointee" argument, but that's really not the case.  Look at his background and it's pretty evident that he is pretty much one of the "Democrat Elites" in Washington DC.

 

I did my bit of research this evening, I would suggest others do the same.

 

Honestly, JIB, I read the same Wiki page you posted and came up with the complete opposite thought on Comey.

 

From a statement in 2007, quoted from the page you linked to:

 

"The Department of Justice, in my view, is run by political appointees of the President. The U.S. attorneys are political appointees of the President. But once they take those jobs and run this institution, it's very important in my view for that institution to be another in American life, that—because my people had to stand up before juries of all stripes, talk to sheriffs of all stripes, judges of all stripes. They had to be seen as the good guys, and not as either this administration or that administration."

 

Later on the page, it states that he's a registered Republican that donated to both John McCain's 2008 campaign and Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign.

 

After yesterday's speech, do you REALLY think Comey's voting for Hillary?  Or that he's somehow a "Democrat elite?"

Quote:Honestly, JIB, I read the same Wiki page you posted and came up with the complete opposite thought on Comey.

 

From a statement in 2007, quoted from the page you linked to:

 

"The Department of Justice, in my view, is run by political appointees of the President. The U.S. attorneys are political appointees of the President. But once they take those jobs and run this institution, it's very important in my view for that institution to be another in American life, that—because my people had to stand up before juries of all stripes, talk to sheriffs of all stripes, judges of all stripes. They had to be seen as the good guys, and not as either this administration or that administration."

 

Later on the page, it states that he's a registered Republican that donated to both John McCain's 2008 campaign and Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign.

 

After yesterday's speech, do you REALLY think Comey's voting for Hillary?  Or that he's somehow a "Democrat elite?"

Hmmm, do I indict my probable future boss or dont I? What to do, what to do?

Quote:Hmmm, do I indict my probable future boss or dont I? What to do, what to do?

 

You know better than that, FSG.

 

With an indictment, the country elects the other guy.  And the other guy's a Republican, just like Comey.

 

Maybe some people just can't be bought.  I have a weird feeling, Comey's one of them.

Quote:You know better than that, FSG.

 

With an indictment, the country elects the other guy.  And the other guy's a Republican, just like Comey.

 

Maybe some people just can't be bought.  I have a weird feeling, Comey's one of them.

I dont think so, I think she wins anyway and he just scored some major points with the new boss by smoothing over her troubles.

There are no honest government officials unless one agrees with everything they do.

Quote:There are no honest government officials unless one agrees with everything they do.

1,000 correct little moments dont make up for [BLEEP] up your biggest one.