2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJames Comey Committed Gross Abuse of Power, per former Justice Dept official
He has made public charges against Hillary that she will never have a chance to legally answer. He couldn't recommend criminal charges since none applied, so he decided to slam her personally instead. This was despicable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comeys-abuse-of-power/2016/07/06/7799d39e-4392-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
Matthew Miller was director of the Justice Departments public affairs office from 2009 to 2011.
When FBI Director James B. Comey stepped to the lectern to deliver his remarks about Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, he violated time-honored Justice Department practices for how such matters are to be handled, set a dangerous precedent for future investigations and committed a gross abuse of his own power.
SNIP
In a case where the government decides it will not submit its assertions to that sort of rigorous scrutiny by bringing charges, it has the responsibility to not besmirch someones reputation by lobbing accusations publicly instead. Prosecutors and agents have followed this precedent for years.
These practices are important because of the role the Justice Department and FBI play in our system of justice. They are not the final adjudicators of the appropriateness of conduct for anyone they investigate. Instead, they build cases that they present in court, where their assertions are backed up by evidence that can be challenged by an opposing party and ultimately adjudicated by a judge or jury.
In this case, Comey ignored those rules to editorialize about what he called carelessness by Clinton and her aides in handling classified information, a statement not grounded in any position in law. He recklessly speculated that Clintons email system could have been hacked, even while admitting he had no evidence that it was. This conjecture, which has been the subject of much debate and heated allegations, puts Clinton in the impossible position of having to prove a negative in response.
In several instances, Comey made assertions that are outside the authority of the FBI. He inserted himself into a longstanding bureaucratic battle between the State Department and the FBI and intelligence agencies, making claims about classification practices at the State Department that do not fall under his jurisdiction. He raised the possibility of administrative sanctions that could be taken, another decision that is not his to make any such sanctions, if appropriate, would be decided by the State Department, not the director of the FBI.
SNIP
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)sc_progress
(9 posts)Comey said Hillary was carless with national security. How dare he criticize the former Secretary of State who knows far more than he does about what is or is not classified. She just deleted emails about yoga and weddings, and had not deleted any emails containing national security information.
She should be commended for having the courage to operate a private email server. After all, that has never been done before.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)next time try polishing your act for a few years
not working very well
thanks for your time
Cordy
(82 posts)Yes, Comey said she was careless with no factual basis in reality. And no, he knows less about the SS email system than Hillary and what is/or isn't classified. As the SS Authority on classification in her Department, she is the ruling authority over what is or isn't classified, not Comey. And it doesn't matter if she deleted the whole system and melted the harddrives in a fire, Hillary has Bush legal precedence to do that after he deleted 22 million emails during and investigation of his private system hooked into the RNC, Karl Rove, and his leaking National Security agent, Jeb Bush,...after being told to preserve those emails.
And yes Hillary should be commended for her private system that wasn't hacked, while the SD was hacked twice in the time frame she was SS. And after all, Reagan is first to have a private email system, along with Bill Clinton and Bush Jr. You really need to get up to speed.
Helping Conservatives recover from misinformation propaganda one post at a time.
PJMcK
(22,078 posts)Director Comey had an agenda and I believe he was desperately hoping to be able to bring charges against Secretary Clinton.
Sucka!
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)ever since then. The Ken Starr investigation must have been extremely frustrating.
SunSeeker
(51,824 posts)Turns out Mr. Integrity is a partisan douchebag.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)He should have had NO PART in this investigation after being a top gun on the Whitewater witch hunt.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)but couldn't prove it; and even the Ken Starr investigation didn't include it in his final recommendations, which only involved prosecuting Bill for lying about Monica.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)spooky3
(34,540 posts)By saying she would be unreasonable to bring charges. Not that I wanted Lynch to do so, but my point is that he could have simply said "we recommend that no charges be filed" which would have been deferential to Lynch's position.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)How long before Hillary supporters claim he's racist and a homophobe?
PatSeg
(47,778 posts)There has been a lot of sexism surrounding for Hillary Clinton for the last 25 years. Whether we like it or not, women often are treated differently than men.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)different than our males in our life. We have been spoken too in certain manners, constantly criticized where our counterpart gets no blame, or even responsibility, the weight of all of humanity.... while being powerless. Quite a feat for us women, and getting to a certain age, it is so easy to hear and see. Because we have lived these hurtles right along with Clinton.
Like many privileged and entitled white will never really hear or see the racism the black community live, ... Many privileged men, will not see and hear the same. Women, too. That is more a difference between racial communities and gendered communities. Many women will not see or hear either, it is so subtle in our society, and so pervasive.
But ya, I agree with you. There has been behavior, that no, a man would not experience, nor would he be expected to, while apologizing.
PatSeg
(47,778 posts)Especially as we get older. One word that pops into my mind is "patronizing". How often have I encountered dismissive, condescending attitudes especially in the work place? What is often surprising is I catch myself doing it occasionally in my assessment of public figures. At least I am aware of it, but it is a learned response from years of demeaning attitudes, so it is not something I can just whisk away. I don't know if I have enough years left to totally unlearn it all.
I appreciate your comparison to racism, as that occurred to me as well. I can't honestly say that I will ever completely understand what it is like to be black or gay or native American etc., but I always try to imagine "walking a mile in someone else's shoes".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)PatSeg
(47,778 posts)Now I have to quit noticing what Hillary is wearing!!! I really feel for women candidates and first ladies. Men can put on a nice suit and tie, shave, comb their hair, and they are ready to go. Can you imagine what these women have to go through whenever they know they will be in the public eye?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a person. I am not mocking you. I seriously understand, lol.
PatSeg
(47,778 posts)I can picture her throwing herself together very quickly and being presentable. Of course, I am old enough now that it doesn't matter that much. Often not looking like a total slob is enough. Still, I do envy how easy it is for men to get ready and leave the house.
I still get the urge to manage Hillary's clothes though..........."Oh no, not THAT color! Totally not you."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)PatSeg
(47,778 posts)after I wrote that, I thought if I were to advise a female politician, I would tell them that the clothes should never be a distraction. We rarely notice what men are wearing. When someone like Hillary gets up on that stage, we should see HER not some bright colored shirt or gaudy jewelry. I think Elizabeth Warren does it very well, tasteful and understated, so you are really paying attention to her and what she is saying.
You know, I just don't understand why they don't ask me for my advice!!!
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Hot pink or fuschia look very nice, though.
PatSeg
(47,778 posts)That color yellow just does not seem to work for anyone other than children. Perhaps the color looks fine in person, but not on camera? I don't even like it on Michelle Obama and she always looks extraordinary.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)far far fetched. Save that card for a more appropriate time
sheshe2
(84,101 posts)To denigrate our Democratic Presumptive nominee. This was purely partisan and he should be asked to step down.
Maybe we should wait until after he testifies in Congress.
Response to pnwmom (Original post)
Post removed
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #7)
Post removed
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)That is the truth.
It is also the truth that Intelligence and State have different standards for what should be stamped classified, and she was caught in a turf war between the agencies. But as the agency Head, she had the full authority over her own Department's classification decisions. Neither Intelligence nor the FBI bore greater authority over her decisions; only Obama and Biden could overrule her and they never did.
As far as Comey's claim that she had a small number of emails that "bore markings" -- those were weasel words because they were never officially classified either. The State Department explained today that those two emails had a mark on them that indicated they would be followed up with phone calls. That "mark" was mistakenly left instead of being removed. It did not mean those emails were classified documents.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)guesses work for many, too.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)it was a highly subjective judgment from a conservative, registered Republican who first went after Hillary in the Whitewater investigation -- and failed then, too.
It was a gross abuse of power for him to use his office to take political potshots since there were no criminal charges that applied.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They get bit in the butt
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)do you know Anything about the Martha stewart case, and WHY she went to jail?
huh?
if they caught her lying, she'd end up in the same place as Stewart did
wtf are you doing here, anyway?
show us EXACTLY where she lied to the FBI, or STFU, thank you
MFM008
(19,839 posts)another syphlitic psychotic rant from tRump.
A republican is a republican no matter how small.
obamanut2012
(26,201 posts)DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)pnwmom
(109,028 posts)I hope you add to the recs. Too bad it went mostly unnoticed.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)nice work, there
here's a typical right wing loon site that loves their resident Hillary phobe's work
http://www.memeorandum.com/160525/p80#a160525p80
why are you posting stuff here from people like her?
want more examples? yours for the asking
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Misrepresented her actions or argue that the message is wrong so you instead continue to attack the messenger. Nice tactic. The WaPo editorial board, one of Hillary's biggest cheerleaders, said that Comey got it right - do you think they are partisan hacks too?
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)has been on her ass since before whitewater. do a little reading before you make such stupid comments
you can start with Fools for Scandal, and very gradually ease your way back to reality from there
you sound like the typical low information gobbler who doesn't bother to look under the gleamy shiny surface. the fact that you cite the hoary trope that the Post is actually behind her shows that you have no credibility whatsoever, and are a mere dilettante when it comes to evaluating the trustworthiness of your so-called news sources
she's had more bad press, including from the post, than ANY other candidate in this cycle
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)was wrong about classified emails.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141510540
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)State explained that two of the emails were wrongly marked. Unclear about the many others:
"I can't speak to that," the State spokesman said. "We also dont have full visibility on what the FBI the documents that the FBI referred to yesterday. We dont have full visibility on every document that they looked at as part of their investigation."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194#ixzz4DggZaLrJ
However, until this is resolved I should admit there is every chance that I am wrong and Hillary did not misrepresent this particular fact. We'll have to wait and see I suppose, although I would agree with those who have opined that the damage (to the extent it exists) was done well before Comey's statements.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)you hit it about the trust factor. the VRWC has been alive for precisely as long as Hillary called it about 20 years ago. they've been after the Clintons for longer than that; it just coalesced to the insane degree it did as the right wing noise machine reached the height of its power under the aegis of the Gingrich/Luntz/Limbaugh axis
tell me all you know about that without googling: ready.....set....GO!!!!
sc_progress
(9 posts)Hillary was the SOS. Words out of her mouth or keyboard are classified, without having been marked classified. No one follows her around to mark her emails "CLASSIFIED" the way emails were marked SECRET, TOP SECRET etc.
emulatorloo
(44,276 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)hope you're well rested.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)because it opens them up to libel suits. Clinton is too much a public figure and has no time to pursue such a suit, but this was out of line. It was given away by the gratuitous use of modifiers, such as "extremely" when all that was done was follow the precedent of Powell and Rice. The unspoken assumption that she ordered the construction of an unsecure system that was then recklessly used was and remains ludicrous.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)And no saying, well, .... We have no evidence, track, proof.... it is still possible.
An X president server not secure? Seems to be better than most.
triron
(22,031 posts)As the Democrat from Massachusetts pointed out numerous government agency systems had been hacked (fact) but no evidence Clinton's was. So what conclusion can be drawn from that?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)yesterday when he did it, and today it remains that way. There was no evidence of criminal intent, and when she delegated this task, she was not careless or sloppy, which have no legal significance in any event. That he described it as "extremely" careless makes it even more of a political jab.
It's a political jab, and that is part of politics. Democrats have to stop appointing Republicans to positions of deep responsibility, and this clown's appointment was just that. There is a tradition of appointing one cabinet level member of the other party in an administration, but that is usually to something like Transportation or Housing or some such. Since Bill Clinton, the appointment to Sec. of Defense has usually gone Republican, and that should stop. Republicans should not be rewarded for their obstruction.
Also, the investigation of all things Clinton for more than two decades hasn't resulted in the Democrats investigating for starting the Iraq war, or deleting emails, etc. Only when the CIA went ballistic over Plame's outing did that happen. We are letting them have free shots at us. We should follow the British example and investigate the Iraq war run up and the Republican example and Bush's deleting of 20 million emails.
spooky3
(34,540 posts)cynzke
(1,254 posts)Good points. But is this merely bad judgment or a coordinated plan to lead this off into a new investigation. Priming the pump so to speak. If Comey had not made this unethical speech with enough insinuations thrown in on purpose, there would be little for the GOP to spin with to lead into another investigation. By throwing out red meat, the GOP has something it can justify to keep this circus going. And he played it well, giving the GOP the opening they needed, to ask the FBI to look into charges of perjury against Hillary in her testimony before Congress. It probably won't lead very far since I doubt the questions asked by the FBI were not much different than those asked by Congress and generalized, pat answers do not necessarily amount to willful perjury. Had Comey kept his comments professional and brief, not including to specific accusations, his appearance yesterday would have solicited anger against him, instead it gave the GOP the perfect opening to turn this back into the hands of the FBI with a NEW INVESTIGATION trying to pin Hillary with perjury. Now Comey and the FBI will be back to take another shot at Clinton. So not only is it unethical and unprofessional it beginning to appear to be a blatant, deliberate effort to bring perjury charges against Hillary. What do all these types of investigations usually lead to....perjury charges. So look where we've ended up here. Benghazi failed, emails failed, where do you go NEXT? PERJURY! This is beginning to stink!
brer cat
(24,673 posts)He needs to step down or be fired if he doesn't.
If a Dem was saying these things about the Repub nominee, can you imagine the ensuing outrage?
okasha
(11,573 posts)It's customary for all cabinet-level administrators to submit their resignations when a new president takes office. Comey's will be accepted immediately.
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)That asshole gets 10 years which doesn't expire until September 2023.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,047 posts)and the GOP is rushing their grand inquisitions through before they get shut down.
It's all bullshit. Republican bullshit.
LAS14
(13,792 posts)LAS14
(13,792 posts)"In a case where the government decides it will not submit its assertions to that sort of rigorous scrutiny by bringing charges, it has the responsibility to not besmirch someones reputation by lobbing accusations publicly instead. "
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)Comey said there was no evidence of hacking then said well it most likely was hacked. Since when does the lack of evidence prove the case? could have is not evidence it is a lack of evidence.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)school of law
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)admidst the onslaught of media/repug whitewater-like frothing
FOOLS for SCANDAL!!!!
gene lyons had this right over 20 years ago. they haven't let up all this time, and Comey was in on it from almost the beginning. he tried the same tactics back then, and even his own bosses on the whitewater committee weren't buying it. what an asshole.
I started a thread on this
liberal N proud
(60,352 posts)elleng
(131,457 posts)elleng
(131,457 posts)not an attorney.
http://vianovo.com/people/matthew-miller
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)what is appropriate and what isn't -- and that Comey violated professional norms.
Prosecutors are NOT supposed to take their cases to the news media when they cannot make them in court. This is a basic ethical principle.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)wow
wow
wow
I saw him last night on TV, and his words were a rare moment of sanity alongside all the whitewateresque BULLSHIT being spread, JUST as they did back then, JUST as they did over Benghazi, travelgate, rose law, you name it
seriously, what happened to you?
Response to Gabi Hayes (Reply #31)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)whitewater inquistors, over Hillary. it's going to be shown, that almost all, if not ALL the emails in question, were either incorrectly classified, marked, or read without headers warning of content. steve kornacki had a former congresswoman/undersecretary of state who told him, that, gee, steve, this is COMplicated. to all those simpletons who are falling for the great republican ruse of simple answers to not-so-simple questions, why don't you WAIT til this shakes out? if she was LYING, Comey, who put Martha stewart in the slam for LYING to the FBI, might have caught her, and had her indicted, yes? so STFU until you go after Comey for not finding the lies
I am NO Hillary fan and am deeply upset that she's the candidate, but I'm not going over the deep end and join ranks with the most organized propaganda outfit ever assembled and help a deranged narcissist take the reigns of power
jesus...what's WRONG with you people?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)spooky3
(34,540 posts)Had wondered about this. His comments seemed extremely inappropriate and unfair (and needlessly detailed, as well as condescending both to Clinton and to Lynch). So I'm glad to see an expert explain exactly what was wrong.
underpants
(183,071 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)VOX
(22,976 posts)It's all they do, it's all they have. No workable ideas, no compromise, never departing from their extremist agenda.
The wiser progressive souls of this country are in for a long, pitched battle against creeping fascism, blind nationalism and religious/racial intolerance. The right wing is like termites, constantly gnawing away at vital support structures. They will not stop, now or ever. They will run this country smack into the ground like they did with Kansas. Especially when mass media enables, as is the case with Trump.
Cha
(298,139 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)Can you guys let anything go?
It's over.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)It's time to move on. That is the past, focus on beating Trump. You can't fight every side battle out there.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)ethical and responsible than Trump and they're trying to kneecap her.
Remember what they did to John Kerry, war hero? Kerry made the mistake of not fighting back against their attacks strongly enough, because they were so obviously unfounded attacks.
Hillary can't let this go and none of us should, either.
runaway hero
(835 posts)That is completely different from an alleged violation of protocol.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)and they're trying to paint her as the opposite -- as "extremely careless," which is absolutely untrue.
It is critical that we don't let them get away with that. And I still have to wonder whose side you're on.
runaway hero
(835 posts)I already, I'm clearly supporting the nominee. This is the fifth time today on and offline that I've gotten into an argument with a Hillary fan because "they're only picking on here because its Hillary." No it's because she's running for POTUS and people care about this stuff.
What are going to do once she completely pivots from this to DON in the next week. She won't talk about this that's for sure.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)conscientious person -- in overwhelming contrast to Trump.
So somehow they're trying to paint her as the opposite.
And your posts have helped me to see the tactic clearly, so thanks for that.
runaway hero
(835 posts)Or anyone else. You keep going at me with the personal attacks why? Discuss the issue. I said she wasn't charged, it's over and it's time to move. I have, and you have not.
karynnj
(59,511 posts)In April 2004, JK put his entire Navy records, other than medical on his Web site. The media spoke of it being JK versus the liars. It was not - it was the liars vs the Navy's records.
What is true is that where all Democrats are out now challenging the accusations against Clinton, most did very little to defend Kerry. Most notably his VP would agree to do so for the csmpaign, then fail to do so. This I. Spite of there being so much they could have used, including:
The Navy records
Kerry's actual crew who were and are very loyal to him.
Rassman, the man he saved, a life long Republican was a strong advocate.
Republican Senator John Warner, who had been the Vietnam Era Secretary of the Navy defended him.
The Nixon tapes included comments that they investigated him and found he was a real hero and clean.
Kerry's own statement given to the Firefighters union that the media ignored even though it was about 2 minutes long.
The Doug Brinkley book, written before 2004, included a lot of research.
However, by November, there were very few who even would have considered JK who still believed the liars. This is why everyone - including you here, but also Republicans - uses the term swiftboating. Why? My guess is because it explicitly means polically motivated, personal destruction lies.
I think it is great that every potential VP and most Democrats are strongly defending HRC. I do think that before you criticize the 2004 nominee, you shoud note that the party actually failed him. Even though the SBVT stuff was not belirved, they stole the ability of the JK campaign using that to define his real integrity and character.
Now and in the 1990s, Democrats have done a good job defending the Clintons - even when there was some minor fault on their part. It is good that is the case, because HRC needs it.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)support, but my memory is that he didn't respond as quickly as he should have.
karynnj
(59,511 posts)They returned in August and that is what you remember. Kerry did immediately say he would respond at the speech to the Fire fighters and did. However, the media gave it little or no coverage. Not to mention - giving them the Navy records was the equivalent of handing over your college transcript if others said you did badly in college. It was the official record and those questioning it should have been asked for proof -- not Kerry who simply put out the Navy records.
There was also a major problem with trying to use an ad to respond. Thanks to the fact that McAuliffe (before Kerry was the nominee) chose a date that was early - he had to use GE money for 13 weeks, while Bush needed it just for 8. Not to mention, answering with an ad to ads -- when the ads were given tons of free coverage would likely have made it even more "he said, they said".
Not to mention, the problem was the media which IGNORED that they had his full Navy records and the Navy gave him those medals. Note that media condoned the Republicans with bandaids making fun of his purple hearts at their convention.
This was something far better addressed by others -- because Kerry actually was a hero and him saying that would have been awkward. Some Democrats, notably Max Clealand were good, but many - especially the loathsome John Edwards - felt it was beneath them to defend Kerry.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)feeling of helplessness as the lies kept spreading.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)No. I am a multitasker capable of handling a number of issues at once. This happened, what? Today? And you think we have spent to much time on it. This is the oddest demand I have seen in a while. Right up there with calling Clinton a liar and not needing any facts because EVERYBODY knows.
You can move on, ok? You can decide for ourselves what we want to address.
runaway hero
(835 posts)But let's be 100 percent honest here: None of this happens if she had just not used the private server. And she won't again.
And is no one supposed to criticize Hillary Clinton ever? I think she can handle herself without you guys.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)She's earned the nomination fair and square. She's not being charged.
Are we going to win this election or not?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sangfroid
(212 posts)If you have something to disprove the specific issues he raised, go to it. This personal attack stuff against Comey, however, just has the aroma of sour grapes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sangfroid
(212 posts)Do you think the word of the Director of the FBI carries the same weight as a couple of guys on the Internet? Really? He could insinuate that Jesus ate pork on Friday and get away with it.
You want to beat him, you're going to have to bring more to the party than "he's a stinky guy." Especially when the vast majority think he is pro-Clinton. If he isn't why didn't the FBI arrest him?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)topic that we found interesting and how a desire to converse about.
sangfroid
(212 posts)I was not aware I was one of "you guys" or that discussion did not include counter arguments. Just a word of advice: don't use that argument in the GE or you'll be calling him President Trump.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)at which they are calling Comey to testify?
Whose side are you on, anyway?
runaway hero
(835 posts)I support Hillary. I don't support tomfoolery and fighting ghosts. She won the primary and has to win the election. She has faced this for 25 years.
So who's side am I on? Hillary. Would you be doing this if Sanders or even O'Malley was the candidate?
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)And he doesn't deserve that respect.
And that has nothing to do with this. Hillary won, so what exactly is your problem with, or should no one criticize her?
She's not being charged and she'll be more careful next time.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)whom he lacked the evidence to indict.
He accused her of "extreme carelessness," which was just his personal opinion. He had no right to express it in that public forum, representing the power of his office. The official Department of Justice Manual for US attorneys specifically bars such statements.
But the fact is that her decision to use the private server was prudent -- if she wanted to carry out her job and archive her emails.
Because she used the private server, and not the .gov system, she was able to produce almost all of her emails. By contrast, according to a report issued by the OIG in 2015, the public .gov system during her time in office was preserving almost no emails -- .0006% in 2011 and even fewer in 2013.
And while there is ample evidence of the .gov system being hacked multiple times over the years, all Comey could do was speculate that her system had probably been hacked, too -- even though he found no evidence.
If you care about transparency in government, then you should be applauding her for using a system that preserved her emails. If she had relied on the State Depts' .gov system, then the State department would have had very little to produce when the FOIA request was submitted.
But yes, if she wanted to look good politically, and to save herself from attacks, then she would have been wiser to use the pathetic .gov system. Too bad she didn't.
From the OIG report dated March 2015:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/isp-i-15-15.pdf
March 2015
Office of Inspections
What OIG Found
A 2009 upgrade in the Department of States system
facilitated the preservation of emails as official records.
However, Department of State employees have not
received adequate training or guidance on their
responsibilities for using those systems to preserve
record emails. In 2011, employees created 61,156
record emails out of more than a billion emails sent.
Employees created 41,749 record emails in 2013.
Record email usage varies widely across bureaus and
missions. The Bureau of Administration needs to exercise
central oversight of the use of the record email function.
sc_progress
(9 posts)"If you care about transparency in government, then you should be applauding her for using a system that preserved her emails. If she had relied on the State Depts' .gov system, then the State department would have had very little to produce when the FOIA request was submitted. "
Hillary should be praised for being courageous and bright enough not to use the state dept's .gov system. She was only doing it because she wanted to be transparent and use a system that preserved her emails.
Hillary is the only honest candidate. All the others lie constantly.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)karynnj
(59,511 posts)rather than 2 years later after the SD demanded them.
Convenience is believable, transparency -- not so much.
runaway hero
(835 posts)You act like he woke up and tried to destroy her. She doesn't or didn't know, now she does and hopefully won't do it again. And just because other people did it, does not make it ok.
It's a dead issue. You either want your candidate to stop Trump at this point, or get bogged down in side wars. I choose the former.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)and so he lost the war.
Hillary can't let this go and we can't either.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)Of course.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)the media mostly swallow the perceived wisdom whole, even Larry ODonnell. he was sickening last night with his deepthroating of the Comey line
wonder if he'll wise up
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)If you don't fight you don't win.
runaway hero
(835 posts)You're opponent wins.
This is the exact same as Nasty Don doubling down on every mistake he makes.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)run a WAY
you can't handle the truth, apparently, which is this is how the other side plays, and the only counter to never ending lies, repeated endlessly, is to tell the truth, and expose the liars as those whom they are
the truth MATTERS
duh
runaway hero
(835 posts)Why get down in the mud with the pigs?
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)your response makes no sense in context with mine.
that said, do you propose just swallowing all the mud, and allowing the pigs to win at the filthy game they play. that is EXACTLY what they hope happens, because they'll do ANYTHING to win. anything
runaway hero
(835 posts)"Win at all costs" sounds familiar...
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)have a nice life
sorry I wasted so much time/energy. my poor poor little laptop is getting logy
buh bye
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)That she wasn't supposed to have a private server? Why are so worked about a guy who can't even make the final decision? She is going to win the general. Not everything is a media conspiracy.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)You're so determined to see Comey destroyed because... he'd didn't push for charges? Come on. She made a mistake and it won't happen again, what have I said wrong here? Tell me?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,030 posts)Who are "you guys"???
UtahLib
(3,179 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,030 posts)There it is
That shines a different light on it !
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)lameass trog david gergen still defends Comey
wonder who will make a better case
that said, dershowitz is an accused child molester, tied to trump/Epstein. to be fair, he sued for defamation, but I don't know the outcome. THAT said, he helped round up the defense team that got Epstein OFF with a slap on the wrist, without the aggrieved getting a chance to sign off on the plea bargain
Vattel
(9,289 posts)still_one
(92,552 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)number of people sign, they will look into it. I think the guy is guilty of an ethics violation. Let's start a petition.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)I would've bolded this passage as well:
Demsrule86
(68,869 posts)Comey is a Republican and it showed during that speech...the bitterness that he could not indict was almost palpable. He slandered Sec. Clinton using his position of authority...abuse of power. I love the president ( I respect his effort at bipartisanship even though it has never worked), but Comey should not have been the FBI director; clearly, he can not separate his personal politics from his duty...Comey has failed in his fight against terrorism in a number of areas too...Boston and Orlando come immediately to mind.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)The FBI had Mateen in their sites. They had gotten recent reports of the weapons he was purchasing. And they did nothing.
barbtries
(28,824 posts)i think i had once respected comey, but what he reminded me of in this case was ken starr.
bigtree
(86,024 posts)...and I expect Democrats at his hearing to set him straight.
ismnotwasm
(42,030 posts)I thought Comey sounded unprofessional and an asshole. His double-speak gave republicans the opening they needed to be even bigger assholes. The whole thing has been a cluster from beginning to end. Glad it's over
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)of holding hearings.
Fucking assholes.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)GOTV
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)At least he was honest enough to admit that no crime was committed, although he was weasly about even that. Here's the money quote:
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)is exactly what this sleazy, inquisitorial hypocrite did, and within the same sentence!
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)representatives in government to tell them you want them to vigorously criticize - on the record - the GOP for their use of techniques of totalitarianism against their politcal opponents. Their abuse of Government power for political gain is a very real threat to our democracy.
The GOP's endless use of inquisitions as political hit squads & to intimidate Government employees in the performance of their duties - is a threat to our Democracy.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)It will take a while for his testimony to be fully parsed, but he certainly was acting in concert with Republicans to influence the Presidential election.
What i want to see is the script. I'd like to know how well they stick to their lines.
Native
(5,943 posts)his opinion is just that, one individual's opinion. An opinion that is completely subjective. My view of extreme carelessness, I'm sure, would be radically different from any number of others opinions. And he, at length, mentioned that sanctions in his department would be based on extenuating and mitigating factors - one factor of which would have to be the level of a person's computer skills and tech know-how. This whole witch hunt totally disgusts me.
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)Hillary wasn't a staffer. She was the agency head. As the agency head, she had the full authority to decide how State-created documents should be classified. The only people who could over-rule her were Obama and Biden.
And they clearly did not.