Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

Of course Comey knew that Hillary would never admit to anything. He also knew that he was not going to charge or even threaten to charge her with anything which is a prerequisite to any plea deal. So she was not going to admit any wrong doing and he was not going to charge or accuse her with anything. The only thing left to do was to put some PR lipstick on the pig and do a little song and dance.

 

It was the element of "intent" that led to his decision. And, there are ways to get around admission of guilt in order to show intent...called, I believe, inference. But, that would have required testimony contrary to Clinton's by her staff to the effect that she was aware that she was breaking the law. That testimony never came. That threw the FBI back onto reliance on a confession, which wasn't happening. Clinton, you will remember, is a graduate of Yale Law School.
I am not arguing her ultimate guilt or innocence...only that Comey was correct in concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty.
Ironically, that standard (and the DoJ policy) protected Trump as well, during the Mueller investigation. Our judicial system is purposely weighted in favor of the defendant against the State and good attorneys make the most of it.

 

Did she intend to have all her official emails stored on her private unsecured, unapproved, shadow server?

 

I don't know. I believe she used the same server as Bill Clinton and at one time said she thought that it was approved as the ex-president's. But, I am not sure of that. She certainly broke policies and procedures...whether she intentionally broke a law is a different issue.

 

Clinton had prima facie evidence of guilt by her storage of US Confidential documents on her unsecured server and her transmission of Confidential emails to unauthorized people over her unsecure email server, for example. Those situations are proof ipso facto of gross negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. When you catch a bank robber with a bank's bag full of cash there is not much more required. One can parse and intellectualize this tens ways from Sunday but the clear and obvious situation was that a political fix was in and that would be the end of it.

I see no connection or similarities at all with Clinton's case and Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign. What would you think I am missing?

 

There were some 30,000+ e-mails examined. Three had partial classified markings with either a (c) or a (C) in front of the first sentence of classified material. She said that she either overlooked that or mistook them to be part of something else copied that was listing paragraphs or points, as in a, b, c, d, e. There was additional unmarked classified material, but none of it was sent to people without proper clearances. There was also material retroactively classified. But, there was no clear, unambiguous transmission of material that was both classified and properly marked. That might get you an FBI investigation based on probable cause, but it is unlikely to rise to the level of "beyond reasonable doubt," unless of course the jury is made up of Fox News addicts. A good lawyer would have pointed out her unfamiliarity with computers, her workload, her delegation of "administrative details" to staff, and reminded the jury that the standard for conviction was "BEYOND a reasonable doubt." Comey called it right. And, had it not been for Bill Clinton's inappropriate meeting with Lynch, Comey would have never been brought into public attention.

 

None of that matters a twit. Every officer goes through a training program in handling Confidential material. Clinton did. Among the many things they are taught is that they are obligated to recognize confidential material whether it is marked as such or not. Another, they are not to send any confidential material to anyone unless they know for certain the person is an authorized receiver with a right to know. Inadvertently overlooking something for a former Secretary of State and US Senator is self evident gross negligence. Next they are expected to have a rudimentary at least knowledge of computer systems. (Brings back her answer, "Do you mean did I wipe computer disk, like with a dish rag??????") Clinton knew enough about computers to have servers installed in unsecured locationS. Finally mishandling classified material is like lightning -- once is enough.

 

That's your "wish list." And, Clinton never denied knowing the rules...her defense was she wasn't aware she was breaking them. Lot's of stuff which is classified appears in the morning papers. This is particularly true of classified material of a political or diplomatic nature. She wasn't exchanging codes or technical details. As to what type of servers or where they were located...I'd be relatively sure she left those details to staff...staff that was unwilling to testify against her and she against them. And, again, the people she communicated with had the appropriate clearances.
But, tell me, what type of computer literacy test do you think politicians and cabinet appointees have to pass before they're confirmed? Were Republicans denied the opportunity to question her on these issues during her confirmation hearing? Maybe they weren't very computer literate themselves?

 

Frankly your parsing and intellectual song and dance is wearing thin. Clinton knew the rules but didn't know she was breaking them??? Surely you jest. She didn't know the rules were broken by allowing her aide open access to confidential material who in turn passed it on to her deviant husband?? She didn't know setting up an official server in her closet and/or bathroom violated the rules, or didn't know her staff just went and did that??? She was not aware that wiping her computer's disk "with a dishrag" to get rid of subpoenaed emails and files, or that smashing iPhones with subpoenaed material violated the rules and laws (though interestingly, IIRC, the FBI helped with that)??? There is no published official confidential material that hasn't somewhere along the line violated the law. Or are you saying Clinton is saying that if some unknown source violated the rules and laws then it is OK if she does too??? I doubt politicians need to take a computer skills test. But it does not sell for Clinton to claim abominable stupidity for breaking the law.

 

Anyone get the scoop on this meeting and it’s impact on Stones sentencing?

 

I'm wondering why they didn't call an emergency meeting when Obama chastised the entire Supreme Court sitting right in front of him during that State of the Union speech........

 

Nevertheless, that's essentially what she did and Comey and the FBI had no way to prove otherwise. No confession or inference to show intent = no indictment. Bigger issues lie ahead...if I were you, I'd move on to something of greater current relevance...such as whether or not Judge Jackson will grant Stone a new trial or recuse herself.

 

You know that’s false and totally refuted by me in this thread. There was plenty of evidence to charge and prosecute, he was ordered by Obama not to though.


Not worried about Stone. It’s clear there was jury misconduct at this point and he’ll either be pardoned or have his sentence communed

 

Yes..I've noticed your claims. Stone may get a pardon. I doubt he'll get a new trial or a recusal by the presiding judge.

 

Obviously the jury misconduct is concerning. I agree the Trial Judge likely just wants this off her docket, and unless ordered by the circuit won’t ...trump will likely just end it instead of dragging it out any longer

 

He has to...otherwise Stone talks and we'll have Impeachment Part II.

 

Talks about what??

 

About his liaison activities between the Russians, Wikileaks, and Trump.

 

He already did and what happened is known hence why he was charged.

i have little doubt the dems will try impeachment again after trump wins..but it won’t be related to mueller. It’s over.

 

What do you mean you don't know? You don't what happened here, did you follow the hearings and Comey's statement? The State Department cybersecurity pleaded with her to use a .gov email on their servers and she refused. And instead had her inept IT guy set up the private unsecured server in her home and used it for ALL her official emails. How is that NOT intent to store classified information on in an unsecured location on an unsecured server? Those policies and procedures were laws including the federal records act and the espionage act and by intentionally having all he official emails on and through that server which was unsecured and unapproved engaged in gross negligence. The first three months she used it it did not even have basic encryption. How is that NOT gross negligence?

 

It's done...get over it. Clinton was a departure from the thread's topic. If you have something to say on topic...I might respond. Otherwise, have a nice day.

 

It is. Comey concluded that, but had to edit the report after Obama interfered and told him there was not going to be any charges

 

MARKINGS DON'T MATTER. How many times does that have to be repeated??

"An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department."

Each one a crime.

 

If you are going to argue the point here and make the specious claim about intent I'll respond to it don't tell me to get over it. There was a cover up of Clinton's illegal handling of classified information.

 

So have these federal judges wiped the egg off their faces yet?