Tag Archives: James Comey

national news, political news

Do the e-mails mean anything … or not?

email-marketing

FBI Director James Comey is going to have a busy week.

He’s going to face immense pressure from Democrats who are incensed at the letter he sent to Congress declaring that he might have some damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mail controversy.

Does he have the goods or not? He’s not saying. All he’s saying is that he has found more missing e-mails.

B … F … D!

I get that Comey might be constrained to reveal the details of an ongoing investigation. What I do not get is why this fellow decided on the eve of a presidential election to reveal the existence of the e-mails — that well might contain no new information regarding Clinton’s use of a personal server while she was working as secretary of state.

He’s made a mess of it, man.

What’s more, he has given Donald J. Trump license to convict Clinton of “crimes” and “corruption” on the campaign stump — while not being privy to a single shred of evidence that the Democratic presidential candidate has done anything wrong, let alone illegal.

Oh, and one more point: Comey isn’t “reopening an investigation” of Clinton, which is another lie that Trump has proffered while trying to rescue his floundering presidential campaign.

For that matter, none of us knows what Comey has discovered.

He might be unable to pore through all the contents, but at the very least he now owes it to the public to explain whether he has found anything that might contradict his earlier finding that “no reasonable prosecutor” would call for an indictment against Clinton over her use of the personal server.

We’ve got a week and a day before we go to the polls, Mr. FBI Director.

Let’s clear the air … immediately!

legal news

Don’t let the e-mail mystery build, Mr. FBI Director

comey

The question of the moment — if you’re Hillary Rodham Clinton — is this: Do the recently uncovered e-mails contain damaging information or are they, well, harmless?

Clinton doesn’t know what FBI Director James Comey has uncovered.

Neither do the rest of us. Not me, or you, or Donald J. Trump — Clinton’s opponent in this race for the presidency of the United States.

That, of course, hasn’t stopped Trump from asserting — without a shred of proof, Clinton has committed a crime while using her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

Comey, though, has fed the rumor-mongers among us to pre-suppose and pre-judge what’s in those supposedly “missing” e-mail messages.

And that brings me to the point I’ve made already, but which needs to be made once more.

Comey needs to release the details of those e-mails immediately — if not sooner.

Moreover, it now becomes apparent that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch — Comey’s boss — said the FBI director’s decision to announce some mysterious findings are not in keeping with Justice Department policy.

This e-mail controversy — and it is not a “scandal” — has become (and pardon the sanitized version of this term) a big-league cluster-fudge.

It is of James Comey’s making. He needs to clean it up.

legal news, national news, political news

Come clean, now, on e-mail issue

FBI Director James Comey has told only part of an on-going story regarding Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He has left the most important part of it out. Comey very well might be keeping secrets from the public. He needs — immediately! — to finish telling this tale.

Comey announced today that he has uncovered more e-mails that Clinton sent out on her personal server while she was secretary of state. Perhaps you’ve heard about these e-mails.

Comey then said they might amount to nothing, or they might be important.

Which is it, Mr. Director?

Eleven days before a presidential election, Comey has tossed a serious pile of goo into this contest.

Clinton happens to be correct to demand that he let the public know all the facts regarding the e-mails. No delay. No hanging cloud. No suspicion.

He has determined once already that he had no grounds to seek a criminal indictment. Now this?

Let’s clear the air. Now.

national news, political news

‘Because you’d be in jail’

trump-vs-clinton

Donald J. Trump scored perhaps the biggest knee-slapper of the evening at his debate Sunday night with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He said she’d “be in jail” if he were president.

Why? Well, I’d like to visit that notion for a moment.

Trump has been accusing Clinton of breaking the law while she was secretary of state. He and other Clinton critics have presumed her guilt for unspecified “crimes.” Trump also has tried and convicted Clinton’s husband, the former president of the United States, of various crimes against women. He called President Clinton the “worst abuser” of women in the history of the American politics.

To punctuate whatever point he sought to make Sunday night, Trump brought four women with him to St. Louis, all of whom have accused the Clintons of various crimes against them.

That’s it, then! They’re guilty because these women said so.

How about holding on for a second.

The FBI examined whether Hillary Clinton broke any laws by using her private e-mail account while serving as secretary of state. She testified before Congress for 11 hours over that very issue. FBI Director James Comey — the Republican career prosecutor who runs the agency — determined that there was nothing on which he could prosecute Clinton. In other words, she didn’t break any laws.

It doesn’t stop there.

Congressional critics now have accused Clinton of perjuring herself in her testimony. That’s it. They have leveled the accusation. Have they brought formal charges? No. Have they produced proof of her committing a crime? No again.

They’ve just leveled the accusation.

As for her husband … and the women whom Trump flew to St. Louis to create a spectacle in the debate hall, they, too, have leveled accusations.

Has anyone brought formal charges against the former president? No. Has any of them testified — under oath — in a courtroom to accuse the president of raping, groping or otherwise abusing them? No.

He, too, is presumed guilty of these accusations. I hesitate to call them “charges” because, I must stipulate again, he’s never been charged with a crime.

What we are witnessing is a perversion of the legal system that is supposed to presume someone is innocent until prosecuting authorities can prove guilt.

Both of these individuals — Bill and Hillary Clinton — have their flaws. I don’t for a second deny that. Their flaws are personal and political.

However, in all the accusations brought before both of them, only Bill Clinton has been charged formally with a “high crime and misdemeanor.” It involved lying to a federal grand jury about his relationship with a young White House intern. The House of Representatives impeached him for it.

Then he was acquitted of the charges by the Senate. He was allowed to finish his second term as president.

Are these two individuals guilty of any of the crimes others have accused them of committing? No.

They deserve the same presumption of innocence to which all American citizens are entitled.

Moreover, the know-nothings who keep saying otherwise ought to adhere to the laws they allegedly cherish.

legal news, national news, political news

Flash, GOP: Hillary didn’t commit any crimes

FILE-In this Jan. 24, 2014 file photo, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus is seen at the RNC winter meeting in Washington. Having fallen short twice recently, Ohio is making a big push to land the 2016 Republican National Convention with three cities bidding as finalists, eager to reassert its Midwestern political clout to a party that may be slowly moving away from it. In interviews, RNC chairman Reince Priebus and members of the selection committee including chairwoman Enid Mickelsen downplayed swing state status as a top factor in their decision, emphasizing that having at least $55 million in private fundraising, as well as hotel space and creating a good "delegate experience" were more important. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said it again this morning.

Hillary Rodham Clinton committed crimes while she was secretary of state, he told Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, he said, is a criminal over her use of a personal e-mail server. He said Clinton sent “highly classified” material out on that server, implying I guess that the material could have fallen into enemy hands.

I expressed long ago some concern over the use of the personal server. Secretaries of state or anyone charged with handling top-secret material need to ensure it’s distributed along highly encrypted channels.

Now, did she commit a crime?

Let’s see. The FBI investigated this matter thoroughly. The agency is run by a Republican, a guy named James Comey, who is as thorough an investigator as they come. He’s also a former federal prosecutor. The man knows the law.

Comey completed his probe and delivered a scathing rebuke of what Clinton did, how she handled the material through the personal server. Comey didn’t like what he found — and he said so! He described Clinton’s use of the personal server as “reckless.”

Then he also said that Clinton didn’t commit an offense for which she could be prosecuted.

End … of … story.

But wait!

Comey also gave the Republican Party a bottomless supply of ammo to fire at Clinton. He’s given the GOP plenty of grounds — or pretexts, if you will — to keep harping about the e-mail issue.

The GOP chairman this morning continued his party’s political attack.

Hillary Clinton, though, is not a criminal.

national news, political news

By all means, release the documents

BBvKoqL

There appears to be a capital idea in the making.

The unclassified material related to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state might be released for public review.

Yes, release them. Let the public see the documents. Let the public review them and let the public decide whether the Democratic candidate for president has earned the right to occupy the office she seeks.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/documents-from-the-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-might-be-made-public/ar-BBvKqCm?li=BBnb7Kz

Republicans all across the country have been making a great deal of those e-mails and Clinton’s use of the private server. They are mighty unhappy that FBI Director James Comey decided against recommending prosecuting Clinton, that she didn’t commit a crime.

Well, now some GOP members of Congress want to pursue perjury charges against the Democratic presidential candidate.

Let’s take a look at the documents.

Hasn’t Clinton actually expressed support for public release of them?

I don’t think Clinton committed a crime and I support the FBI’s conclusion on that matter.

I also believe in full transparency. So, let’s separate the classified documents from the unclassified papers. Release them to the public and let the public decide the fate of this investigation — for which the public paid a lot of money.

Will it open up a whole array of political discussion and debate? Sure it will. That’s what happens in the middle of a presidential election.

national news, political news

Time for Clinton to meet the press … head-on

hillary

As one who used to make his living trying to hold politicians accountable for their words and deeds, I am perplexed by Hillary Clinton’s aversion to answer questions from the media.

Politico Magazine calls it her “phobia” of press conferences.

Count me as someone who believes the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee should stand firm in front of microphones and answer the tough questions she knows would come at her during a formal press conference.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-press-conference-phobia-214026

As Politico reports, Clinton hasn’t done so since December 2015. When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her about that, according to Politico, Clinton “blithely” told him that she’d get around to it eventually.

Mme. Secretary, a lot has transpired since the end of this past year.

We’ve had the House Select Benghazi Committee complete its work. FBI Director James Comey announced just the other day that he won’t recommend bringing criminal charges against her in the e-mail controversy, which effectively ends that tumult. Republicans in Congress, though, plan to look some more into whether the FBI did its due diligence in examining the e-mail matter.

And oh yes, she’s got this presidential campaign and she ought to answer some of the weird insults that GOP candidate Donald J. Trump keeps tossing her way.

I get that politicians of all stripes are skittish when the press starts poking around. But hey, it’s their job to ask difficult questions when they need answers.

It’s also the politicians’ job to answer those questions when the media start asking them.

It’s not as if Hillary Clinton is a stranger to this exercise. She served as Arkansas first lady, then the nation’s first lady, then a U.S. senator from New York (which has a notoriously ferocious media climate) and then secretary of state.

She’s now campaigning for the most important office in the nation — if not the world!

It’s not going to get any easier for her from this moment on.

Inquiring minds, Mme. Secretary, are asking for answers to many serious questions.

legal news, national news, political news

Clinton need not be shut out of classified access

BBrGg2n

Let’s settle down just a bit, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan.

The Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be denied access to “classified material” after she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States.

Why? Because of her handling of the e-mails while she was secretary of state and because, according to the speaker, it “looks like” the FBI gave her preferential treatment in its yearlong investigation into her use of a personal e-mail server while she led the State Department.

It’s been customary for decades to allow presidential and vice-presidential nominees access to national security briefings while they campaign for the White House. Ryan got it when he ran for VP four years ago along with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

I thought the best response to this statement of outrage from Ryan came from famed defense lawyer and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz. He said on CNN Wednesday that — in light of FBI Director James Comey’s stern tongue-lashing in announcing he would recommend no criminal charges be brought against Clinton — that the former secretary of state would be careful in the extreme in reviewing this classified material.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ryan-block-clintons-access-to-classified-materials/ar-BBu0Vt8?li=BBmkt5R

Ryan, of course, won’t be called off. Quite naturally — and expectedly — he’s angry that the FBI and the Justice Department have decided that Clinton didn’t commit any crimes. He’s going to proceed with a Republican investigation into the FBI probe to determine whether Comey and his staff of career prosecutors did their job fairly, without bias and without outside influence.

It’s quite obvious to me that Ryan’s mind is made up, that the FBI was in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate. This GOP investigation won’t answer any questions.

For her part, Clinton needs to face the partisan outrage head-on. I hope she does so. Will she be able to quell the partisan anger? No.

In the meantime, Clinton she should be able — as a candidate for president — to receive the national security briefings that has gone to previous nominees.

legal news, national news, political news

Public mistrust casts pall over FBI’s findings

06comeytranscript-master768

This is what it’s come to in this country.

The head of the nation’s leading federal investigative agency offers a compelling argument for why he isn’t recommending a criminal indictment against a candidate for president.

And yet there remains doubt over whether the FBI did its job with integrity and professionalism.

FBI Director James Comey offered a detail explanation of his agency’s findings today in determining that it wouldn’t recommend seeking an indictment against Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server while she served as secretary of state.

Here’s his statement in full. It’s worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/transcript-james-comey-hillary-clinton-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Sure, he has scolded Clinton for being “careless” in her handling of e-mail messages sent from her server. But in his careful language, Comey assures us that no prosecutor worth a damn would find any reasonable cause to seek criminal charges over what transpired during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.

Moreover, I also accept the declaration that the FBI director did his job with integrity.

As Comey said this morning: “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”

I accept those findings.

legal news, national news, political news

No indictment over e-mails

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton won’t be indicted for her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

That’s the conclusion of the pros, the career prosecutors and investigators at the FBI.

So, that’s the end of the controversy, correct? Clinton now can campaign for president of the United States without the sniping, carping and conspiracy-minded criticism leveled by her foes?

Excuse me while I bust a gut.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-recommends-no-charges-for-clinton-over-email-system-at-state-department/ar-AAi7Py6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

No, FBI Director James Comey’s own words today have given the anti-Clinton cadre plenty of ammo to sling at the Democratic candidate for president.

He called her “extremely careless” in her use of the private server. He said he found no “clear evidence” of criminality.

Right there, you’ll see foes translate “careless” into words like “incompetent” and “inept.” No “clear evidence” will be parsed to mean that there’s something smelly, but that the feds just couldn’t find anything with which to hang a criminal charge.

The Clinton campaign, of course, will spin these findings differently. They’ll congratulate the FBI for its professionalism. Indeed, James Comey remains high on most observers’ lists of impartial, hard-nosed and fair-minded law enforcement authorities.

Hillary Clinton no doubt will have steeled herself for the onslaught that awaits. Her enemies will quite naturally suggest or imply that her husband Bill’s meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Phoenix played some sort of role in the FBI’s decision to forgo seeking an indictment. That’s how conspiracy theorists work.

What the heck? Hillary and Bill Clinton ought to have developed rhino-hide by now, given all the hideous accusations they have faced dating back to when Bill Clinton was Arkansas governor.

From my perch, I believe James Comey is a pro and that the FBI did its job with due diligence.

He did, though, toss out a couple of red-meat morsels for Clinton’s enemies to chew on — which I believe they’ll do with great gusto.