There is literally nothing in that letter that pleads the Fifth.
Partisan defense? I’m not a Trump supporter, and I haven’t voted for a single Republican in over a decade … but call Hillary a liar, and that makes me a partisan. LOL.
She claimed that she only used one phone; the FBI found she used several, in some cases destroying the old ones with a hammer. Are we supposed to think that was some kind of innocent mistake, that aides swapped out phones without telling her, and dotty old Hillary just didn’t notice? That despite 25 years at the highest levels of government, she was still sincerely ignorant of what (c) means at the start of a paragraph?
She lied, simply and obviously. Comey didn’t say it out of courtesy. The rest of us are under no such obligation.
Even if they are not classified they may still be sensitive. And she may have had these emails on her laptop while working for Clinton in the State Department* but the fact that they are still on her laptop while in the private sector bothers me for some reason I can’t put my finger on.
And now that I think about it, yeah it is related to the server issue. What sort of security does her laptop have?
- I’m assuming that as an aide to Sec’y Clinton she would need similar clearance even if not a member of the state department.
I was all like, dude, don’t diss it, the bacon is FREE, who cares if it’s any good? But then I read it again.
Oh, so you’re voting for Hillary then? Because I am, but I still manage to write things that are critical of her without spouting Fox News talking points.
You need to get outside the conservative media bubble.
She used one phone at a time, but used multiple phones over a period of years. Like most of us.
She should have done a better job of destroying the deprecated phones, but of course that’s not what you’re criticizing her for, apparently.
and, I suspect every administration since Reagan has been waiting for a chance to use that money that we don’t really own to grease the track of one negotiation or another with Iran.
Your right … sorry I didn’t read the whole thing … seems she is just refusing to answer questions about the transfer of the funds and of course why it was secret.
And, funnily enough - intent doesn’t matter in violating the Hatch Act.
I’ve previously cited Richard Painter, a lawyer for the Bush admin and expert in lawyer-ethics, who has filed an official complaint against Comey with Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics.
Here’s a different cite, the NYT op-ed where Painter lays out his reasoning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html
Of course, it is important to let the investigation of Director Comey’s alleged Hatch Act Violation play itself out, but I can’t help suspect that he’s going to have a hard time explaining why it was so crucial to announce the emails before he’d even read them.
It was secret?
You may correct if wrong but you will have to use authority a bit better than what you have offered so far, but…
The Attorney General is not the SecState, international diplomacy is not her bailiwick. I don’t think she is responsible for matters of international law, her plate is quite full enough with just the USA.
Secondly, IIRC, the transfer was secret because the Iranians wanted it that way. Simply because something is secret does not necessarily mean it is nefarious.
Bite your tongue sir! You are attacking someone else’s religion!
You know that Clinton also broke a law that doesn’t require intent as well, right?
As much as I admire pithy and concise arguments, that won’t do. At least add in some cowbell.
I don’t get the calls for Obama to pardon Mrs. Clinton. She hasn’t been even charged with a crime as yet.
I"ve already voted for her, but if, down the road, she ends up being charged with and convicted of … something, I won’t object to that. There are mechanisms in place to deal with such thing. It’s certainly not enough to justify a Trump Presidency.
Joe Walsh, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzales are scolding Comey. Its out there, you can find it, I can’t link it because I feel dirty already just reading it…
Barkeep! Tequila and bongwater! Make it a double.
Comey hasn’t even read the emails yet – he just got a warrant for them. How is he supposed to comment on something which he hasn’t even read?
Look do I think Comey’s motives are pure and altruistic? No, but he’s in a tight position. Democrats were singing his praises about his fairness and objectivity over the summer but now he’s a partisan hack. We wouldn’t be talking about this if Clinton had used better judgment in setting up her server and had Abedin used better judgment in her choice of men.
It’s a straight reading of the law, don’t know what sort of cowbell you need. As I quoted earlier from Comey’s testimony :
Then he goes to say the Justice department clearly never felt comfortable enforcing that part of the act and it would be inappropriate to start now.
No, I don’t. I know that Comey, in declining to recommend criminal charges, specifically mentioned that Clinton had not done anything that meets the necessary intent portion of that law.
Answered above.
I’ll have what he’s having -
Joe Walsh’s tweet:
Look, I think Comey should have said prosecute her back in July. But what he just did 11 days b4 the election is wrong & unfair to Hillary.
Bill Hemmer tweet -
MORE: @KarlRove says FBI Director James Comey was “wrong in July and was wrong on Friday.”
Rebecca Shabad tweeted:
George W. Bush’s AG Alberto Gonzales on @CNN right now: “I really worry that [Comey] has made an error in judgment.”