FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn’t Prosecute The Rich And Powerful

[Freewill]

.

OK, since folks are saying there are others that had private servers, and there are, can anyone name one of them that had a private server that was vulnerable to hacking and was running for president? She put people's lives at risk doesn't that mean something?

YOU do NOT know she put others at risk...you do not know what was in these emails....Hillary wants them released because she believes there is nothing that critical in them...so does the State dept, but the CIA or the intelligence community says they are still secret.... who knows why?

From Congressman Hurd:

“Mr. Chairman, I’m offended. I’m offended by my friends on the other side of the political aisle saying this is political theater. This is not political theater. For me, this is serious. I spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer in the CIA. I was the guy in the back alleys collecting intelligence, passing it to lawmakers. I’ve seen my friends killed, I’ve seen assets put themselves in harm’s way, and this is about protecting information. The most sensitive information the American government has, and I wish my colleagues would take this a little bit more seriously.”

Here listen to Hurd and Comey say without laughing that it take intent to be criminal, although he later says that it is not in the law.

Listen to Hurd questioning Comey, then you will know how awfully wrong you are.

Hurd questions FBI chief about Clinton inquiry

 

[Freewill]

Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?

OMG, I have to admit to be very stupid. (go ahead have fun with that I deserve it)

I now realize what you and Mrs. Tuzla are doing. Took longer then it should have. Just like with Bill's lying under oath you want to make it about something else. As was done making his lying under oath and denying a woman her rights into it was nothing but a BJ.

Now that you heard that many people have private servers you are doing the same thing. Making it about owning a server and not about having classified material on a realitively unprotected server. Or her lying to congress and to the American people, as did Bill.

I am thinking that this new tact is deserving of a Goebbels award.

I read that the State Department with relatively protected servers, was hacked in to 45 times just this past year....

That is 45 that they may know about. probably nerds just playing around. The real hackers I am sure do not log in.

 

[Care4all]

At least Comey confirmed that Hillary is guilty of lying to Congress

NO he did NOT prove that... the emails he said were 'marked' were NOT marked properly with the classified status at the top and date it was classified so anyone could miss it...

AND IN ADDITION those 3 emails were not classified and were mismarked, they were 3 memos from a scheduler in her staff, trying to make arrangements with Hillary to set up a phone call with another Diplomat overseas.

 

[rightwinger]

Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?

OMG, I have to admit to be very stupid. (go ahead have fun with that I deserve it)

I now realize what you and Mrs. Tuzla are doing. Took longer then it should have. Just like with Bill's lying under oath you want to make it about something else. As was done making his lying under oath and denying a woman her rights into it was nothing but a BJ.

Now that you heard that many people have private servers you are doing the same thing. Making it about owning a server and not about having classified material on a realitively unprotected server. Or her lying to congress and to the American people, as did Bill.

I am thinking that this new tact is deserving of a Goebbels award.

You somehow duck the question

Show where one of the "little people" was prosecuted while Hillary was not

 

[Freewill]

Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?

OMG, I have to admit to be very stupid. (go ahead have fun with that I deserve it)

I now realize what you and Mrs. Tuzla are doing. Took longer then it should have. Just like with Bill's lying under oath you want to make it about something else. As was done making his lying under oath and denying a woman her rights into it was nothing but a BJ.

Now that you heard that many people have private servers you are doing the same thing. Making it about owning a server and not about having classified material on a realitively unprotected server. Or her lying to congress and to the American people, as did Bill.

I am thinking that this new tact is deserving of a Goebbels award.

You somehow duck the question

Show where one of the "little people" was prosecuted while Hillary was not

OK, show me a little person who was/is SOS and had an non-secure server.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At least Comey confirmed that Hillary is guilty of lying to Congress

NO he did NOT prove that... the emails he said were 'marked' were NOT marked properly with the classified status at the top and date it was classified so anyone could miss it...

AND IN ADDITION those 3 emails were not classified and were mismarked, they were 3 memos from a scheduler in her staff, trying to make arrangements with Hillary to set up a phone call with another Diplomat overseas.

"Hurd continued, “At least seven different email chains or eight that were classified as TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information)?”

“Correct,” Comey replied.

“So the former secretary of state, one of the president’s most important advisers on foreign policy and national security, had a server in her basement that had information that was collected from our most sensitive assets and it was not protected by anyone and that is not a crime?” Hurd asked."

You Clintionites are purely derranged

 

[rightwinger]

Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?

OMG, I have to admit to be very stupid. (go ahead have fun with that I deserve it)

I now realize what you and Mrs. Tuzla are doing. Took longer then it should have. Just like with Bill's lying under oath you want to make it about something else. As was done making his lying under oath and denying a woman her rights into it was nothing but a BJ.

Now that you heard that many people have private servers you are doing the same thing. Making it about owning a server and not about having classified material on a realitively unprotected server. Or her lying to congress and to the American people, as did Bill.

I am thinking that this new tact is deserving of a Goebbels award.

You somehow duck the question

Show where one of the "little people" was prosecuted while Hillary was not

OK, show me a little person who was/is SOS and had an non-secure server.

Republicans are whining how Hillary is getting special treatment. Yet, they have failed to point to a case where someone with a similar security violation was prosecuted

And yes, previous Secretary of States had private email

 

[Timmy]

Wow. This from the Huffington Post of all places.


Rich man’s law, poor man’s prison.

WASHINGTON ― Americans have grown accustomed to the idea that some criminal laws target specific populations. Drug possession charges tend to hit low-income black communities harder than other neighborhoods. The sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine just happens to result in long prison terms for black people, while Wall Street snorters receive leniency.

But the legal system’s bias against the poor and people of color is not limited to laws that directly put these populations in the crosshairs. It’s also reflected in the privileged treatment received by the rich and powerful who violate laws targeting the rich and powerful.

This is why FBI Director James Comey’s decision to effectively exonerate Hillary Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information is so troubling. In a Wednesday press conference and an epic Thursday hearing before Congress, Comey accurately described his choice as consistent with a century of legal precedent. But based on any fair-minded understanding of justice, this precedent is a moral outrage.

Comey’s decision to shrug off prosecution was based on decades of “gross negligence” prosecutions, or more accurately, a lack thereof. Under the 1917 Espionage Act, federal prosecutors have brought only one case against a public official based on gross negligence. Clinton may have repeatedly mishandled classified information, even when she should have known better. That could be the basis for a prosecution based on negligence ― failing to uphold the law without actually trying to break it. Over the past century, authorities have exercised discretion in such cases. Absent criminal intent ― a willful desire to break the law ― prosecutors have overwhelmingly avoided bringing such cases.

So Comey’s point is consistent with the historical record. But here’s the problem: Negligence is a crime of power. The weak, low-ranking (and low-born), however, do not and cannot commit crimes of negligence, by definition. For example, when whistleblowers draw attention to a problem by leaking it to the press, this is not an act of negligence ― it is a deliberate act. The Obama administration has been ruthless with whistleblowers, throwing the book at Chelsea Manning and destroying the career of Thomas Drake. John Kiriakou received a 30 month sentence for leaking details about the CIA’s torture program. There are many other cases.

FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn't Prosecute The Rich And Powerful

You're article is bogus. I can't think of anyone much higher than the CIA Director, David Petreaus who was prosecuted by the FBI for delivering classified documents to his mistress, then lied to the FBI, and tried to hide evidence. I imagine David Patreaus as a 4 star General was also fairly wealthy.
James Comey: David Petraeus case worse than Hillary Clinton's emails - CNNPolitics.com

The general got a slap on the wrist because of who he is .

 

[rightwinger]

Wow. This from the Huffington Post of all places.


Rich man’s law, poor man’s prison.

WASHINGTON ― Americans have grown accustomed to the idea that some criminal laws target specific populations. Drug possession charges tend to hit low-income black communities harder than other neighborhoods. The sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine just happens to result in long prison terms for black people, while Wall Street snorters receive leniency.

But the legal system’s bias against the poor and people of color is not limited to laws that directly put these populations in the crosshairs. It’s also reflected in the privileged treatment received by the rich and powerful who violate laws targeting the rich and powerful.

This is why FBI Director James Comey’s decision to effectively exonerate Hillary Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information is so troubling. In a Wednesday press conference and an epic Thursday hearing before Congress, Comey accurately described his choice as consistent with a century of legal precedent. But based on any fair-minded understanding of justice, this precedent is a moral outrage.

Comey’s decision to shrug off prosecution was based on decades of “gross negligence” prosecutions, or more accurately, a lack thereof. Under the 1917 Espionage Act, federal prosecutors have brought only one case against a public official based on gross negligence. Clinton may have repeatedly mishandled classified information, even when she should have known better. That could be the basis for a prosecution based on negligence ― failing to uphold the law without actually trying to break it. Over the past century, authorities have exercised discretion in such cases. Absent criminal intent ― a willful desire to break the law ― prosecutors have overwhelmingly avoided bringing such cases.

So Comey’s point is consistent with the historical record. But here’s the problem: Negligence is a crime of power. The weak, low-ranking (and low-born), however, do not and cannot commit crimes of negligence, by definition. For example, when whistleblowers draw attention to a problem by leaking it to the press, this is not an act of negligence ― it is a deliberate act. The Obama administration has been ruthless with whistleblowers, throwing the book at Chelsea Manning and destroying the career of Thomas Drake. John Kiriakou received a 30 month sentence for leaking details about the CIA’s torture program. There are many other cases.

FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn't Prosecute The Rich And Powerful

You're article is bogus. I can't think of anyone much higher than the CIA Director, David Petreaus who was prosecuted by the FBI for delivering classified documents to his mistress, then lied to the FBI, and tried to hide evidence. I imagine David Patreaus as a 4 star General was also fairly wealthy.
James Comey: David Petraeus case worse than Hillary Clinton's emails - CNNPolitics.com

The general got a slap on the wrist because of who he is .

Petraus intentionally passed classified information to his Mistress who he knew was not cleared

 

[boedicca]

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

negligence

n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving. Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors and miscalculations, such as a sloppy land survey. In making a claim for damages based on an allegation of another's negligence, the injured party (plaintiff) must prove: a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public, b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done, c) that the damages were caused ("proximately caused") by the negligence. An added factor in the formula for determining negligence is whether the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the alleged carelessness. If the injury is caused by something owned or controlled by the supposedly negligent party, but how the accident actually occurred is not known (like a ton of bricks falls from a construction job), negligence can be found based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself"). Furthermore, in six states (Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland) and the District of Columbia, an injured party will be denied any judgment (payment) if found to have been guilty of even slight "contributory negligence" in the accident. This archaic and unfair rule has been replaced by "comparative negligence" in the other 44 states, in which the negligence of the claimant is balanced with the percentage of blame placed on the other party or parties ("joint tortfeasors") causing the accident. In automobile accident cases in 16 states the head of the household is held liable for damages caused by any member of the family using the car under what is called the "family purpose" doctrine. Nine states (California, New York, Michigan, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island) make the owner of the vehicle responsible for all damages caused by a driver given permission to use the car, whether or not the negligent driver has assets or insurance to pay a judgment. Eight states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) allow the owner to rebut a presumption that the driver was authorized to use the car. Negligence is one of the greatest sources of litigation (along with contract and business disputes) in the United States.


gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

=====================================

Director Comey, did not have the option to charge her for Negligence, he only had the option of Gross Negligence. This is what is in the Espionage Act...remember the whole section of these Statues/Laws was in the Espionage Act.....yes, Espionage.

What Clinton did was NOT Espionage...it was careless and stupid and maybe even possibly negligent, but it WAS NOT Gross Negligence for Espionage, according to the legal definition I posted above. He ONLY had the option of GROSS Negligence... that's not his fault, that's Congress, who wrote and passed the Law, way back when.

Yep. hiLIARy was Grossly Negligent by setting up a Private Unsecured Email Server from the Get Go.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

.

OK, since folks are saying there are others that had private servers, and there are, can anyone name one of them that had a private server that was vulnerable to hacking and was running for president? She put people's lives at risk doesn't that mean something?

YOU do NOT know she put others at risk...you do not know what was in these emails....Hillary wants them released because she believes there is nothing that critical in them...so does the State dept, but the CIA or the intelligence community says they are still secret.... who knows why?

If the emails were not confidential while she was Secretary of State, and seeing there was no other form of correspondence under her position, all the information that was brought to her attention regarding what the administration knew about Benghazi would be open to the media for public scrutiny. Now you want to try and tell me the administration is THAT transparent with nothing really that critical, or that she came across information that the public really doesn't need to know?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?

OMG, I have to admit to be very stupid. (go ahead have fun with that I deserve it)

I now realize what you and Mrs. Tuzla are doing. Took longer then it should have. Just like with Bill's lying under oath you want to make it about something else. As was done making his lying under oath and denying a woman her rights into it was nothing but a BJ.

Now that you heard that many people have private servers you are doing the same thing. Making it about owning a server and not about having classified material on a realitively unprotected server. Or her lying to congress and to the American people, as did Bill.

I am thinking that this new tact is deserving of a Goebbels award.

I read that the State Department with relatively protected servers, was hacked in to 45 times just this past year....

So you're saying that makes Hillary's emails on her private server even that much more secure to foreign governments, who make it their business to hire professional hackers to obtain classified information? That would make Mrs Clinton even more reckless given her position.

 

[Freewill]

Can anyone provide an example where a poor person was prosecuted for having a personal server?

OMG, I have to admit to be very stupid. (go ahead have fun with that I deserve it)

I now realize what you and Mrs. Tuzla are doing. Took longer then it should have. Just like with Bill's lying under oath you want to make it about something else. As was done making his lying under oath and denying a woman her rights into it was nothing but a BJ.

Now that you heard that many people have private servers you are doing the same thing. Making it about owning a server and not about having classified material on a realitively unprotected server. Or her lying to congress and to the American people, as did Bill.

I am thinking that this new tact is deserving of a Goebbels award.

You somehow duck the question

Show where one of the "little people" was prosecuted while Hillary was not

OK, show me a little person who was/is SOS and had an non-secure server.

Republicans are whining how Hillary is getting special treatment. Yet, they have failed to point to a case where someone with a similar security violation was prosecuted

And yes, previous Secretary of States had private email

OK, I can't find another case where the SOS had an unsecured personal server and the FBI received a referral from the intelligence community. You got me, she's the first.

So I need you to point out those who have had similar violation.

Those you may find did suffer consequences, like loss of clearance, that would be the least. Shouldn't that happen in this case? Thus making her unqualified to be CIC?

 

[Freewill]

.

OK, since folks are saying there are others that had private servers, and there are, can anyone name one of them that had a private server that was vulnerable to hacking and was running for president? She put people's lives at risk doesn't that mean something?

YOU do NOT know she put others at risk...you do not know what was in these emails....Hillary wants them released because she believes there is nothing that critical in them...so does the State dept, but the CIA or the intelligence community says they are still secret.... who knows why?

If the emails were not confidential while she was Secretary of State, and seeing there was no other form of correspondence under her position, all the information that was brought to her attention regarding what the administration knew about Benghazi would be open to the media for public scrutiny. Now you want to try and tell me the administration is THAT transparent with nothing really that critical, or that she came across information that the public really doesn't need to know?

Although the intelligence community is the one that gave the FBI the refferal it wasn't state secrets Mrs. tuzla was trying to hide from foriegn nationals. It was Mrs. Tuzla trying to hide information from us. She wanted to circumvent FIOA requests. She's a sneak and as with lying, not too good at it.

 

[Freewill]

Wow. This from the Huffington Post of all places.


Rich man’s law, poor man’s prison.

WASHINGTON ― Americans have grown accustomed to the idea that some criminal laws target specific populations. Drug possession charges tend to hit low-income black communities harder than other neighborhoods. The sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine just happens to result in long prison terms for black people, while Wall Street snorters receive leniency.

But the legal system’s bias against the poor and people of color is not limited to laws that directly put these populations in the crosshairs. It’s also reflected in the privileged treatment received by the rich and powerful who violate laws targeting the rich and powerful.

This is why FBI Director James Comey’s decision to effectively exonerate Hillary Clinton for allegedly mishandling classified information is so troubling. In a Wednesday press conference and an epic Thursday hearing before Congress, Comey accurately described his choice as consistent with a century of legal precedent. But based on any fair-minded understanding of justice, this precedent is a moral outrage.

Comey’s decision to shrug off prosecution was based on decades of “gross negligence” prosecutions, or more accurately, a lack thereof. Under the 1917 Espionage Act, federal prosecutors have brought only one case against a public official based on gross negligence. Clinton may have repeatedly mishandled classified information, even when she should have known better. That could be the basis for a prosecution based on negligence ― failing to uphold the law without actually trying to break it. Over the past century, authorities have exercised discretion in such cases. Absent criminal intent ― a willful desire to break the law ― prosecutors have overwhelmingly avoided bringing such cases.

So Comey’s point is consistent with the historical record. But here’s the problem: Negligence is a crime of power. The weak, low-ranking (and low-born), however, do not and cannot commit crimes of negligence, by definition. For example, when whistleblowers draw attention to a problem by leaking it to the press, this is not an act of negligence ― it is a deliberate act. The Obama administration has been ruthless with whistleblowers, throwing the book at Chelsea Manning and destroying the career of Thomas Drake. John Kiriakou received a 30 month sentence for leaking details about the CIA’s torture program. There are many other cases.

FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn't Prosecute The Rich And Powerful

You're article is bogus. I can't think of anyone much higher than the CIA Director, David Petreaus who was prosecuted by the FBI for delivering classified documents to his mistress, then lied to the FBI, and tried to hide evidence. I imagine David Patreaus as a 4 star General was also fairly wealthy.
James Comey: David Petraeus case worse than Hillary Clinton's emails - CNNPolitics.com

The general got a slap on the wrist because of who he is .

Petraus intentionally passed classified information to his Mistress who he knew was not cleared

Let me use this analogy. It is 1945, I am working on the Manhattan Project. I have personal files and a file on how to construct the bomb. I take them all home by accident. The file for the bomb is then stolen giving the secret to the Russians. What would happen? Hell the Rosenburgs were killed and it isn't quite positive they did it.

 

[Freewill]

I am impressed with the left wing.

The deal with Lynch and Bill meeting was a thing of beauty. What a pawning of America. The timing of the rest of the story is also quite amazing.

But what really is impressive is that Mrs. Tuzla comes out and more or less says that Comey said that her emails were probably hacked and all the defenders of Mrs. Tuzla chirp in unison.

I just wonder that when the defenders of Mrs. Tuzla find out that they were pawned and Comey never said that, do they feel remorse for having Mrs. Tuzla making them look like fools? Or are they too used to it to feel pain?

 

[Care4all]

I think she was not trying to keep govt records from the govt, she was trying to keep her personal and her private Clinton foundation correspondence from the govt Republican Congress critters, who would spend endless hours on one fake-gate after another, or keep their beloved right wing media busy and lucrative by creating sensationalized fake stories one after another of 'wrong doing'....blah blah blah.

She's not stupid, she's very intelligent (although not the brightest bulb when it comes to computers and email like MOST of those over the age of 65), she and I and other people that are even just remotely ''aware'' of their senses, knows what the Republican dirty tricks and M/O for the Clintons have always been...spend millions upon millions upon millions upon millions on investigating them while deflecting from their own Republican incompetence.

She wasn't trying to hide govt work from any of us or from Republicans or FOIA's....nothing of importance, nothing was damning in any way out of the tens of thousands of govt emails that were released and even the ones found afterwards by the FBI from other gvt workers she copied or communicated with, and from the emails deleted over the years that were recovered from her server... They show, she worked like dog for us, 24/7 in her job as SOS.

Do you think Donald Trump will let you see all of his business doings if God forbid, he ever became President? He won't even show he's worth the 10 billion he claimed, he won't let us see his tax returns, the hell with all contenders for the presidency have shown them the past 40 years....it's all A OK with Republicans, yet for the Clintons...you hold them to this higher standard of everyone else in the whole wide world.... it's mind boggling the obsession the Republicans have with them...

 

[Freewill]

I think she was not trying to keep govt records from the govt, she was trying to keep her personal and her private Clinton foundation correspondence from the govt Republican Congress critters, who would spend endless hours on one fake-gate after another, or keep their beloved right wing media busy and lucrative by creating sensationalized fake stories one after another of 'wrong doing'....blah blah blah.

She's not stupid, she's very intelligent (although not the brightest bulb when it comes to computers and email like MOST of those over the age of 65), she and I and other people that are even just remotely ''aware'' of their senses, knows what the Republican dirty tricks and M/O for the Clintons have always been...spend millions upon millions upon millions upon millions on investigating them while deflecting from their own Republican incompetence.

She wasn't trying to hide govt work from any of us or from Republicans or FOIA's....nothing of importance, nothing was damning in any way out of the tens of thousands of govt emails that were released and even the ones found afterwards by the FBI from other gvt workers she copied or communicated with, and from the emails deleted over the years that were recovered from her server... They show, she worked like dog for us, 24/7 in her job as SOS.

Do you think Donald Trump will let you see all of his business doings if God forbid, he ever became President? He won't even show he's worth the 10 billion he claimed, he won't let us see his tax returns, the hell with all contenders for the presidency have shown them the past 40 years....it's all A OK with Republicans, yet for the Clintons...you hold them to this higher standard of everyone else in the whole wide world.... it's mind boggling the obsession the Republicans have with them...

Right, blame her lack of intelligence and lack of honesty on republicans, typical democrat behavior.

The FBI received a referral from an intelligence agency, it was not drummed up by Republicans.