90% of the people who head Comey's speech and his decision can not believe what they just heard. How about you? Here is my take. I like to keep things simple.
Comey chose his words very carefully. He said that "he" did not consult anyone out side of the FBI, but he did not say that no one under him did not consult with Obama or the Attorney General. You know that there was talk going on between staffs! Comey got the word about what he had to do and that was to take the "fall" and protect Obama and the Attorney General "or else"! He did that but got in his strokes by laying out the strong case against Clinton and making her look dirty and incompetent.
I am not a lawyer, but I still think that I understand most of the law. When Comey tried to find cover by looking back at prior decisions about security crimes, he forgot to mention that 99% of those cases ended up with "plea bargains" where the person pleaded guilty to get a softer punishment. I don't think that any went to trial. In the case of Clinton, they play hardball and would not agree to a plea bargain for a softer penalty. The Clintons knew that too may government securest would have to be revealed in open court to convict them and the government could not afford that. That is what you don't hear on the News. Look at the problem when they considered trying the terrorists at Guantanamo? Too many securits would have to be revealed so they released the terrorists one by one.
Just because someone was not tried in a court of law does not mean that they are innocent! The question that should have been asked of Comey was, "What is your estimate of the probability of a conviction if the Clinton case went to court?" We have no idea what the basis for Comey's decision was. You can never be sure of a conviction, so what is his "going in" estimate of the chances? People with a brain know that it can not be 100% or no one would ever be held accountable. How sure does one have to be to take a case to court? How sure does one have to be as a juror to convict someone? How sure do you have to be to let in a Muslim who could be a terrorist? We all need to be discussing this. I know that liberals tend to want to be 100% sure before they convict someone or keep a Muslim terrorist out of the USA and conservatives know that this is not possible. The end result is the liberals keep using "perfect" as a defense against any reasonable solution to anything. This Clinton thing is just another example.
PS-- I spoke to the local judge today about the Comey statement and he agreed that the law makes no provision for "intent". Comey just made that idea up to justify his recommendation not to prosecute. The judge said that this thing is far from not over.
PS---I was talking to a friend about my blog and he said that he thought the reason that Comey did and said what he did was that if he had recommended prosecution, he would have to have kept his mouth shut. Had he done that, Obama would have just run out the clock and voters would not get the facts until after the election, if ever. I think he my be right.
Comey chose his words very carefully. He said that "he" did not consult anyone out side of the FBI, but he did not say that no one under him did not consult with Obama or the Attorney General. You know that there was talk going on between staffs! Comey got the word about what he had to do and that was to take the "fall" and protect Obama and the Attorney General "or else"! He did that but got in his strokes by laying out the strong case against Clinton and making her look dirty and incompetent.
I am not a lawyer, but I still think that I understand most of the law. When Comey tried to find cover by looking back at prior decisions about security crimes, he forgot to mention that 99% of those cases ended up with "plea bargains" where the person pleaded guilty to get a softer punishment. I don't think that any went to trial. In the case of Clinton, they play hardball and would not agree to a plea bargain for a softer penalty. The Clintons knew that too may government securest would have to be revealed in open court to convict them and the government could not afford that. That is what you don't hear on the News. Look at the problem when they considered trying the terrorists at Guantanamo? Too many securits would have to be revealed so they released the terrorists one by one.
Just because someone was not tried in a court of law does not mean that they are innocent! The question that should have been asked of Comey was, "What is your estimate of the probability of a conviction if the Clinton case went to court?" We have no idea what the basis for Comey's decision was. You can never be sure of a conviction, so what is his "going in" estimate of the chances? People with a brain know that it can not be 100% or no one would ever be held accountable. How sure does one have to be to take a case to court? How sure does one have to be as a juror to convict someone? How sure do you have to be to let in a Muslim who could be a terrorist? We all need to be discussing this. I know that liberals tend to want to be 100% sure before they convict someone or keep a Muslim terrorist out of the USA and conservatives know that this is not possible. The end result is the liberals keep using "perfect" as a defense against any reasonable solution to anything. This Clinton thing is just another example.
PS-- I spoke to the local judge today about the Comey statement and he agreed that the law makes no provision for "intent". Comey just made that idea up to justify his recommendation not to prosecute. The judge said that this thing is far from not over.
PS---I was talking to a friend about my blog and he said that he thought the reason that Comey did and said what he did was that if he had recommended prosecution, he would have to have kept his mouth shut. Had he done that, Obama would have just run out the clock and voters would not get the facts until after the election, if ever. I think he my be right.
