FBI

J. Edgar Comey

The FBI director produces an October surprise he didn't have to.

|

I had intended to use this final column before the presidential election to explain at length why I cannot vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and plan to vote for Gary Johnson for president. In a nutshell, big government is our biggest problem. It thrives on more debt, more taxes, more regulations, more war, a secretive deep state and less personal freedom. Both Clinton and Trump would grow the government. Only Johnson would shrink it.

One of the most dangerous tendencies of big government is the generation of a police state—wherein laws, rules and procedures are primarily written and can often be bent to aid law enforcement when it is encroaching on our personal freedoms. We saw a terrifying example of that last week when FBI Director James Comey behaved as if he were his most infamous predecessor, J. Edgar Hoover.

Here is the back story.

Late last week, in an effort to redeem himself from the consequences of having ignored a mountain of evidence of guilt against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last summer, Comey told Congress in a cryptic letter that the FBI would resume investigating her emails based upon the belief that more of them may be located in the laptop of disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Weiner is the alleged sexual predator who remains the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, one of Clinton's closest aides. Abedin backed up all her emails onto the laptop that she and her husband shared.

At the time he sent his Friday letter, Comey had not yet seen the contents of the Weiner laptop because the search warrant authorizing FBI agents to access its contents was not signed until Sunday. If he saw something incriminating before he wrote his letter, he saw it unlawfully; yet his duty was to bring what he saw to the Department of Justice (DOJ), for which he works, not to hint about it publicly to Congress.

Comey's progress report to Congress is prohibited by the internal regulations of the DOJ and the FBI—and by the canons of legal ethics that regulate lawyers. Comey had no obligation to send the letter at any time; moreover, sending it last week was a direct violation of DOJ and FBI rules that prohibit all public announcements about candidates for public office within 60 days of Election Day.

Comey told FBI staffers early this week that he sent the letter because he felt duty-bound to members of a congressional committee to whom he had given a promise that he would keep them informed of the status of the email investigation. That was a troublesome promise because its compliance violated other duties imposed upon Comey. Worse than making a promise and not keeping it is making a promise that should not be kept.

The genesis of all this was Comey's unprecedented news conference on July 5, at which he announced that no charges would be filed against Clinton because no prosecutor would take the case. That was not an announcement for him to make. The FBI's job is to gather facts and present them to the DOJ, not to make legal evaluations. He made his announcement when he did to head off the behavior of some of his agents who were seeking Clinton's medical records, unlawfully, from the National Security Agency to ascertain the gravity of her head injury—an injury she posited during her FBI interrogation as the reason for her professed memory loss.

I have argued that Comey's July 5 decision was dead wrong; there is a mountain of evidence with which to indict and convict Clinton on espionage charges. Yet it should have been presented to a grand jury—it was not—rather than at a news conference. The July 5 announcement was bizarre in that it not only exonerated Clinton but also described the quantity and quality of the evidence against her. This insulted the agents who worked on the case and produced the lowest collective FBI morale since Watergate. If Comey sent his Friday letter to address the problems he caused by his July 5 announcement, he did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

But perhaps the gravest of Comey's violations is that of the constitutional guarantee of due process. The essence of due process is notice and fairness. How exquisitely unfair of Comey to say, in effect, "We have something that warrants investigation of you, yet we don't know its significance, so we can't say what it is." This is reminiscent of Franz Kafka's The Trial, in which the lead character is being pursued for a year on unnamed charges, against which he cannot defend himself.

In his play A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt shows Sir Thomas More arguing with William Roper, a colleague, who suggests that government lawbreaking can be justified for the greater good, particularly if the target is the devil (which Trump has called Clinton). More demolishes that argument in a few now iconic lines: "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man's laws, not God's—and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

To my friends who have rejoiced in James Comey's letter, please take warning that, as More accurately predicted, the tables can be turned. If there is any moral lesson in all this, it is that the history of human freedom consists of paying careful attention to constitutional guarantees and legal protections, no matter the reputation of the accused.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

Advertisement

NEXT: Watch Anthony Fisher on Kennedy Tonight Alongside Gavin McInnes and Bonnie McFarlane

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s a blatant witch hunt. She kept her classified emails on the State Dept server (which got hacked) and used her home server for other emails. Did a few “C” get through? So what. OMG there were drones over Afghanistan. Give me a break. Like I said, witch hunt. She served her role well and got a lot fewer people killed than her predecessor. We’re making progress.

    Comey is the propagandist in chief. He created “Chasing The Dragon” (Drug addiction agitprop) and “Don’t be a Puppet” (de-radicalization nonsense). I actually give him credit for sticking his neck out for Clinton in July – the FBI is under great pressure to start up new witch hunts and he resisted (even after wasting hundreds of man-years on scouring Chelsea’s wedding plans for state secrets). So I forgive him for this. It’s now up to the country to decide whether to pursue this witch hunt, or to decide that perhaps the FBI is now creating more crime than it prevents.

    1. But I liked the article! Good historical and literary references. Yes the situation is nasty – but we’re making progress.

      1. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
        Read more on this site… http://www.Trends88.com

    2. It doesn’t bother you that the Democrat nominee for president handled information so carelessly that they ended up on the laptop of a Democrat child molester?

      Democrat child molester?

      Let me say that again:

      Democrat child molester?

      1. No. There are worse people than pedos. I’m personally looking for one to handle my investments, another to be my therapist and one more as a nanny for my deaf and mute 10 year old daughter.

      2. Democrat child molesters can be excused because Democrats have good intentions.

        Had it been a Republican? Well that’s a different story.

        1. + 1 A. Wiener

      3. If the rumors be true – Weiner is far from the only Democrat child molester.

    3. You should read Judge Nap’s other stuff on Hillary. She is a crook through and through, not a victim. But I appreciate his even-handedness and ability to look at the bigger picture. A lot of Hillary’s opponents have jumped on this recent story as evidence that Comey and the FBI are somehow redeeming themselves, but in fact it reflects even more poorly on the way they’ve been handling this investigation.

      1. I agree it reflects poorly on the FBI’s handling of this investigation, but where I beg to differ (and I know it’s not principled or moral, but, hey, we live in an imperfect world) is in the fact that this is the same FBI that reports to the same DOJ that kept running investigations of TEA party groups because they had the temerity to want to use money to run ads for candidates and issues they liked, and wanted to reduce the size of the behemoth federal government. I’ll take what I can get from folks that are already breaking the laws and regulations that govern their investigative body, and try my best to reduce the size and scope of their powers in the meantime.

        1. Wasnt it the IRS, not DOJ, who went after tea party groups? I dont remember hearing anything about criminal charges being brought over “tea party” fundraising or spending.

          1. As I recall, that’s because the DOJ conducted a sham investigation and decided everything was a-ok.

    4. Is it a “Witch Hunt” if you’re hunting a real witch?

      1. Yes, but not a “Witch Hunt – Witch Hunt”.

        1. Does she float?

          1. Do government loans count?

          2. Like a duck

    5. “It’s a blatant witch hunt.”

      My God. She deleted 30k emails AFTER receiving a subpoena. AFTER…receiving… a subpoena. That is to say nothing about WHY she deleted them in the first place.

      She DID mishandle classified information, which is a crime. I’ve had a secret security clearance, and I would still be in prison today if I did what she did. Service members are in prison today, right at this moment, for less.

      This all legally should have been presented for a grand jury to decide. No excuse for that. One law for Her, one for us.

      You fuckers have no shame whatsoever. I mean I could understand just not wanting to talk about it. But lying for your obviously corrupt candidate makes you just as fucking horrible as she is, you piece of shit.

      1. He has shame. He feels it every time he unzips his pants to take a leak.

    6. She kept her classified emails on the State Dept server

      There’s no evidence that she ever set up a siprnet or JWICS account.

      Did a few “C” get through? So what.

      There was TS information on there too.

      You really suck at this InfoSec thing and life in general.

      1. Two drawings with “C” on them broke the Walker spy ring.

        I worked on those drawings, back in the day.

        1. I miss the commies, toe-to-toe brinkmanship with tens of thousands of Statebuster fusion bombs. They were dangerous, sneaky, technically adept–not like these medieval islamofascists we’re stuck with today–thanks to the Bush Dynasty making us a Religious State.

    7. Ah, I love the smell of prog tears. Unfortunately, schadenfreude is the only joy I get out of an otherwise shitty election.

    8. She is flat out guilty of crimes anyone else would be imprisoned for. Her intent doesn’t matter. That you’re cheering him on in covering for her is soft headed bullshit.

      1. If schandenfreude could kill it would have been us instead of… um… him

    9. The State Department unclassified network – the one that Clinton could, and should, have used for ordinary business – was penetrated, probably by the Russian intelligence service, a year or two after Clinton left the department. It was reported at the time that the State Department secure network, where all classified material is required to be stored, had not been penetrated.

      Note that Clinton would have been in violation of the law and State Department regulations if she had used an account on the DoS unclassified network and had the classified material store there; that is because the unclassified network is not certified and accredited for classified material. Operation of an uncertified or unaccredited server to store and process government data violates the law and State Department regulations whether or not any of the data is classified.

  2. In his play A Man for All Seasons

    But Sir Thomas More died in 1535. That’s over 200 years before the founders wrote the Constitution. English was completely different back then. Who knows what he actually thought or said? It’s forever shrouded in mystery (like Shakespeare).

    1. Or like the United States constitution?

      1. ‘Shall not be infringed’ what the hell does it mean?

        1. “If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.” – Hillary Clinton

          1. Except abortion. Because penumbras are so much more important that actual black letter text.

          2. I say we regulate the hell out of women’s suffrage.

            1. What’s that meant to mean?

        2. Nothing. If Hillary wins, we’re into negative numbers.

          1. Wasn’t that prophesied as Revealed Truth before that nice Senator from Kenya won each election?

        3. “The security of a Free State” what the hell does THAT mean?

          1. Protecting it from Marxists, and others who seek to subvert the constitution in favor of ‘collective rights’.

      2. They have trouble with ‘to keep regular’ also.

        1. Exlax FTW.

    2. Shakespeare? You mean Christopher Marlowe, right?

      1. BACON, goddammit!

        1. I thought ((()))s couldn’t have bacon.

          1. Shakespeare wasn’t one of (((us))).

            1. Francis disagrees.

          2. Nothing wrong with a little Shake and Bace now and then…….

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMjw7qPT9qE

        2. I still ascribe to the Marlovian theory. And if they’d pull his bones out of that church and do a DNA test, it would be proven. That’s why they won’t do it.

          ::adjusts tinfoil hat::

          1. Mebbe they’re scairt of the curse? Half the voters believe Jesus existed (God removed the records to test our faith). Grandpa’s generation was convinced The Demon Rum contained Satanic Possession and that “cocaine n-words” (REDACTED) were bulletproof, hence the need for militarized po-lice. I try not to underestimate the foolishness of ignorant superstition.

            1. And I never underestimate the buffoonish arrogance of smug bigots.

  3. Comey really screwed himself when he didn’t recommend charges in July and arrest Hillary on the spot. This is way worse than Justice Roberts inventing law from the bench on ACA. Isn’t it written that institutions will fail in the end days of a system. Are these failings a harbinger of a darker future?

    1. Isn’t it written that institutions will fail in the end days of a system. Are these failings a harbinger of a darker future?

      Plus, the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last night. The end is nigh.

      1. Umm, spoiler alert? Geez.

        1. I’ve got the skate rental concession in the 3rd ring!

    2. I don’t think Comey screwed himself. I think he was screwed by his boss and the administration. I think he was told in no uncertain terms, that a proscecution will not occur and if he recommends it, his head will roll.
      Comey’s statements to Congress in July were very harsh to Clinton. He pulled no punches in criticism of her actions.

      I think this most recent disclosure to congress, was Comey’s end-run around the administration, in support of his agents that, by all accounts, are chomping at the bit to bring down the Clintons.

      Scott Adams has a very inciteful assessment of Comey’s actions and I think the most likely scenario that is playing out. Before July, Comey was known across both sides of the isle as a highly ethical, non-partisan, calm, rational professional. It is highly unlikely that has changed.

      1. >>>inciteful

        I see what you did there.

        1. I’m pretty sure that his use of “inciteful” was an (unfortunately common) error, but I see what YOU did there, and give you a hearty lol!

      2. It is Comey’s lack of character that led to this fiasco. He should have arrested Clinton and been willing to be fired as a consequence. If the Clinton’s had any honor, they would commit seppuku.

    3. Comey really screwed himself when he didn’t recommend charges in July and arrest Hillary on the spot.

      He should have done none of that. His job was to present the findings and details of the investigation to the DOJ, and notify Congress that they had concluded their investigation and that it was now up to the DOJ to decide whether the findings warranted convening a grand jury so the people could decide if a prosecution was warranted.

  4. I understand that protocol and procedure must be followed and all that but if Comey had taken this to the Justice Department it would have buried for political reasons. He screwed up initially by not charging but he did the right thing here in my view.

    1. One would think that protocol and procedure demand fidelity to the law and Constitution first above political concerns.

      1. Except that over the past 8 years political concerns have been the only thing that matter at many government agencies.

        1. ^This. The media likes to talk about how the Obama Administration has avoided any scandals during his tenure. That is categorically false. Obama has avoided any personal scandals, as in the Bill Clinton sort, but the lack of other “scandals” is only because the media has chosen to ignore how he has turned nearly the entire federal apparatus into either an anti-Republican harassment machine or a 24/7/365 Obama campaign. The government has always been political, treated insiders different, etc., but the degree to which that has become flagrant during the Obama years is astounding.

      2. Which makes the DOJ refusing to seat a grand jury a real head scratcher. Not to mention all of the players involved with conflicts of interest that should have recused themselves. That’s protocol, right?

        1. The reason for lack of a Grand Jury is simple.
          It might come back with the wrong result…an indictment.

          1. Nah. If the grand jury included partisan Democrats, which it would, you wouldn’t get an indictment.

            1. Grand Juries don’t need unanimous decisions to bring indictments.

          2. Grand Juries do have a hankering for indicting ham sandwiches.

            Hillary is the biggest porker of them all, so the DOJ knew what would happen.

    2. To pick a nit: the FBI doesn’t charge people, the DOJ does.

      1. But Comey isn’t allowed to make them look like assholes.

  5. Are we really to believe that no one in the FBI or Comey himself hadn’t seen the contents of the emails prior to issuance of a warrant? I find it hard to believe. Is Comey covering his ass because he knows how damning the evidence is?

    I’ll steal something I read on twitter: Prediction – in one year’s time either Trump or Kane will be president.

    1. The NYPD and FBI field agents saw some of it and were reportedly stunned. This sounds like the motherload of evidence on the Clintons.

      1. They had a warrant to look at the contents of the laptop. They discovered a potential other crime while looking at it. Where’s the problem here? If a cop goes into someone’s house with a warrant to look for drugs and discovers evidence of a murder, that evidence isn’t tainted.

        Judge is way off base here, IMO. And that doesn’t even touch on the fact that Comey has legal cover if he just says “I was amending my sworn testimony from an open session of multiple committees by sending an open letter to the chairs of those committees, as I and every person ever to give a sworn deposition or committee testimony have been instructed to do.”

        1. +1 Law Abiding Citizen.

        2. “”I was amending my sworn testimony from an open session of multiple committees by sending an open letter to the chairs of those committees, as I and every person ever to give a sworn deposition or committee testimony have been instructed to do.”

          Nailed it.

        3. There was a warrant to look at contents of the laptop relevant to the sexting case.

          1. Which involves looking at metadata on the hard drive. It’s not like they were just searching for a desktop folder entitled “Carlos Danger sexts with teenagers” and had to stop if they didn’t see one. They likely saw file names referencing the Clinton email server, which led to the request for a warrant to review the emails themselves.

        4. You’re right. The judge IS way off based here. Mark Levin went into great detail on the subject yesterday on his radio show. Sorry, I couldn’t find a link to the clip.

    2. I think it would be hilarious to have Kaine as president. That way, when we deplorables don’t go along with him, we can be The Kaine Mutiny

      1. + more strawberries

      2. Kaine would be a disaster. Far too many Republicans, claiming an interest in ‘comity’ would be all-too-glad to get back to the business of ratcheting up the power and expense of the Federal leviathan.

    3. Comey isn’t covering his ass. He is communicating to the American people in the most clear manner he is able to within the scope of professionalism. He is saying to all of us “hey…there is something going on that you need to be aware of prior to casting a vote”.

      Comey is known for high ethics and non-partisanship. There is a reason he was affirmed 99:1 by the Senate.

      1. Had Comey, when giving his non-indictment free pass to Hillary, been blinking out distress signals like a POW I might believe your assessment. As it is he’s simply in full DCCYA mode trying to hang on to whatever power and influence he can regardless of who wins next week.

        1. Not “blinking out distress signals”??? Comey’s been sending SOS’s and Mayday’s from the start. What was all that discussion of her errors and wrongdoing in his “no indictment” announcement, if not a loud and clear distress signal? All along Comey (and apparently the whole FBI) has been saying, “We don’t think a jury would convict with the evidence at hand. But an FBI employee who did what she did would not be given more power and authority, and probably would lose some or all of his/her current power, authority and perquisites. An FBI official who did these kind of things would never eat in the executive dining room again. Do we really want to give more power to the person who did ?”

  6. Yeah, whatever.

    The important thing is that the Cubs Won The World Series.

    Awesome game. Totally worth staying up late to finish watching.

    1. Screw those deep dish eaters.

      1. With deeper toppings, it”s okay.

  7. That was not an announcement for him to make. The FBI’s job is to gather facts and present them to the DOJ, not to make legal evaluations.

    Except for the inconvenient fact that DoJ got caught in an unethical situation (the secret Lynch-Clinton meeting) so had to take itself out of the decision loop.

    Getting caught sucks.

    1. It is a little hard to figure out the proper procedure when your boss is implicated as a co-conspirator.

      1. Having watched many documentary/thriller movies on this conundrum, we can expect assassins (“assets”) and car chases.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrONotIe57c

      2. If you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s everyone but government employees.

    2. This. The normal process became impossible once the parties that should have recused themselves started influencing, and mostly impeding, the investigation. He didn’t go outside the box. He was forced there.

      1. Let’s not forget that of all the people who could lead the Huma email review they gave it to the tightest Clinton friend in the entire DOJ, Peter Kadzik. Folks have already been linking to zerohedge.com’s coverage of the guy and his relationships with the Clinton machine.

        1. Yep. That story is out in the wild now although I doubt you’ll see in on CNN.

          http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/e…..at_justice

    3. I’m not sure DOJ got “caught”. I can easily see that being an intentional play to save Lynch from having to do the right thing or justify not doing it.

    4. And he promised to notify Congress of developments.

      1. yes he did. He gave himself a professional “out” back in the July. Comey is a smart guy.

    5. Precisely. James Comey did not decide that he would be the arbiter of Hillary Clinton’s guilt. Loretta Lynch did after she was caught chit-chatting on a private plane with Bill Clinton. Or rather, she decided it would be better to force Comey to let Hillary skate and ruin his reputation than get called out for a hyper-partisan decision to let the case drop. Comey did his best to preserve his honor, first by letting Congress and the American people know that even though he couldn’t bring charges, they had every reason not to trust her or elect her. He continues doing the same, but we wouldn’t even be hearing his name if Bill and Loretta had not created a situation where this got dumped on the FBI.

  8. Howie Carr: “Carr: Instead of Carlos Danger, let’s just call Anthony Weiner ‘rat'”

    I too am wondering if instead of sex rehab, Weiner is in a secure FBI facility using his get-out-jail-free card. Maybe his wife is there too.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…..weiner_rat

    1. Huma Abedin used to be described as Hillary’s “surrogate daughter.” But Monday, Hillary brusquely dismissed her as “one of my staffers.”

      Ooooh …. SNAP!!

      1. What’s Arkansan for ‘sleeps with the fishes?’

        1. got lost in the swamp?

        2. Sleeps in Whitewater?

          Vince Fostered?

          Ron Browned?

    2. Isn’t his surname insult enough??

    3. …….And Jack Bauer has only hours to identify and neutralize the wetworks team sent to liquidate them!

  9. The judge ‘jumped the shark’ here. Hoover was one of the most corrupt and power hungry people to ever be in a high position in U.S history. And you know who else corrupted the legal system ?

    1. Ronald Reagan?

    2. Senator Palpatine?

    3. Alan Shore?

  10. The voters have the right to information. Government has no right to shield them from it. Surprises should happen before citizens make their choice for president, not after.

    That said, if Comey hadn’t been such a hack concerned more about political directives from the AG made at the behest of Bill Clinton than about the integrity of the FBI, he wouldn’t have created this current mess for himself and his agency.

    1. Government has no right to shield them from it.

      *** rising intonation ***

      What about compelling government interest?

    2. Exactly. I respect the judge’s opinion but here we part ways. The only reason for the 60 day proscription against making announcements about investigations of candidates is out of fear that voters would become biased against said candidates. Well, yeah, no shit! Is it better for us as a country to keep voters in the dark? I know I wouldn’t want to cast a vote for someone only to find out in mid-November that he or she is under investigation for a felony. Of course I believe in due process, but I also believe in transparency. Let the voters choose whether or not to consider a candidate innocent until proven guilty.

      1. And due process doesn’t even enter into this. She’ll get it. She has the right to it. She doesn’t have a right to an easy run at the presidency. And no one but the voters get to decide what criteria to use in choosing their candidate.

      2. Why are smart people getting suckered into this desperate Clinton defense? Yes there’s no precedent for what comey did bc finding pertinent evidence in an federal investigation into THE FUCKING CANDIDATE THEMSELF 10 days from an election is unprecedented! Comey has made many errors throughout and Obama has the constitutional authority to relieve him – it is the same POLITICAL implications Judge is lambasting that’s keeping this whole affair in the swamp.

  11. If the Democrats wanted Comey to adhere to protocols, perhaos they should not have had him break them in July. The Clinton’s have been merrily breaking codes of honor to their own benefit for decades, it is a bit of karma for one of the shards to stab them in the backside

    1. That’s how I see it. This setup is what the Clintons wanted. Now they’ve been hoisted on their own retard.

      1. Or, in the spirit of the article, the Clintons have cut down all the laws, and now the winds blow back against them and they have nowhere to hide.

        1. And I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton knows something about ‘blow back’.

  12. Not a single what if? I am disappoint.

    1. What if people set up a guillotine in DC?

  13. THERE ARE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS IN THIS AND THEY’RE BOTH A QUOTE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSON!!

    WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO OUR JUDGE?!

  14. Comey was advised of the laptop and emails existence about 4 weeks ago.

    NYPD legally examined and read the contents per their Weiner investigation.

    NYPD gave a summary to Comey more recently (last week)

    Comey knows the general contents but has not illegally read the emails sans warrant (Come on Nappy, how else could it have happened?)

    From the NYPD summary, Comey knows they are hugely significant and that he will reconvene the investigation and that the first step will be to obtain a warrant. To not advise Congress of this significant change of status would be much worse than to advise them.

    Lynch already put Comey in charge of her decision making in this case, so he made a decision.

    Hey Lynch, STFU. Next time, don’t have a meeting to form a conspiracy with the husband of your chief suspect.

    Comey did not send a public letter, he sent a select letter to the heads of the Committees he had testified and reported to.

    Certain members of Congress released the letter’s contents to the public.

    Nothing in Comey’s letter reflects poorly on Clinton. It simply advises that their is significant evidence not yet examined and that his July statement is no longer in effect.

    1. just wanted to own up that the theory I espoused yesterday looks bunk in regard to the NYPD’s involvement.

      1. Which theory was that? That the NYPD has now been brushed aside? It is possible starting now that the FBI will do just that to the NYPD. My debate with you was just that at this time we don’t know, and so your statement that the NYPD no longer is in possession of devices or emails did not have a basis beyond speculation.

  15. “Comey’s progress report to Congress is prohibited by the internal regulations of the DOJ and the FBI?and by the canons of legal ethics that regulate lawyers. Comey had no obligation to send the letter at any time; moreover, sending it last week was a direct violation of DOJ and FBI rules that prohibit all public announcements about candidates for public office within 60 days of Election Day.”

    It wasn’t a progress report. A progress report is what he gave in his July testimony.

    I would say Comey did have an obligation to tell the Congressional committees that his July statement (investigation complete) was no longer in effect. That is all his letter did.

    The letter was not a “public announcement”.

  16. This entire investigation should have been completed 6 months ago if Hillary did not obstruct, delay, stonewall, Bullshit, and destroy. The shit is hitting the fan right now during the last week of the campaign. So what? The one person complaining about it is entirely responsible for it.

  17. “To my friends who have rejoiced in James Comey’s letter, please take warning that, as More accurately predicted, the tables can be turned. If there is any moral lesson in all this, it is that the history of human freedom consists of paying careful attention to constitutional guarantees and legal protections, no matter the reputation of the accused.”

    This is exactly the kind of analysis I’d expect from a good judge–the kind that reinforces my faith in justice and the rule of law.

    I believe Hillary Clinton to be a unique threat to the rule of law. Rewarding Hillary Clinton with the legitimacy that winning elections can bring–after it becomes public knowledge that she did things like accept money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State–undermines the rule of law like nothing else does. This is how leaders like Putin and Hugo Chavez undermined the rule of law. Once people don’t believe the rule of law applies to their leaders or will protect them from their leaders, they stop looking to the rule of law to protect them and start looking for strongmen on their own side.

    For that reason alone, Hillary needs to lose. But just because I think it’s important that Hillary loses specifically because she ignored the rule of law and just because I was hoping that the FBI, the Justice Department, and the rule of law would save us from Hillary Clinton, that’s no reason to support Comey ignoring the rule of law himself.

    1. ” that’s no reason to support Comey ignoring the rule of law himself.”

      Agreed, however,

      Nappy’s article did not convince me that Comey ignored the rule of law.

      1. “Comey’s progress report to Congress is prohibited by the internal regulations of the DOJ and the FBI?and by the canons of legal ethics that regulate lawyers. Comey had no obligation to send the letter at any time; moreover, sending it last week was a direct violation of DOJ and FBI rules that prohibit all public announcements about candidates for public office within 60 days of Election Day.”

        Just because we don’t like what the law says doesn’t mean it says something else.

        What Comey should have done was resign in protest when Loretta Lynch refused to empanel a grand jury.

        That’s what Obama, Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton feared most–since they already decided that Justice Department would not seek an indictment.

        1. Except, as has been pointed out, Comey made no public announcement, which is the only thing that is prohibited here. He informed Congress of the state of the investigation, as he ethically should considering the regular chain of command to which he would usually report is implicated in the conspiracy, and it was Congresspersons who informed the American people, as is their right (and, I would argue, duty). One could argue that this violates the spirit of the law even thought it conforms to the letter of the law, but if the spirit of the law is to keep the public in the dark about the malfeasance of their so called public servants then it is only right to violate it.

          1. “Except, as has been pointed out, Comey made no public announcement, which is the only thing that is prohibited here.”

            That’s not what Napolitano’s post says:

            “Comey’s progress report to Congress is prohibited by the internal regulations of the DOJ and the FBI?and by the canons of legal ethics that regulate lawyers. Comey had no obligation to send the letter at any time; moreover, sending it last week was a direct violation of DOJ and FBI rules that prohibit all public announcements about candidates for public office within 60 days of Election Day.”

            1. “That’s not what Napolitano’s post says:”

              That’s the point, Ken. Nappy mischaracterizes the letter as a progress report. It was not.

              Here’s what the letter basically said:
              “Remember when I told you the switch was set to “off”? Well, now it is back “on” again.
              Why? you might ask. All I can tell you is it’s due to significant new information.”

              1. His responsibility, apparently, was to inform the Department of Justice.

                By any other name, what he did was prohibited, and I don’t have to support that.

                Not even if I like it that everyone is now thinking about Hillary’s crooked behavior.

          2. “One could argue that this violates the spirit of the law even thought it conforms to the letter of the law, but if the spirit of the law is to keep the public in the dark about the malfeasance of their so called public servants then it is only right to violate it.”

            Again, you’re talking about undermining the rule of law here in order to save . . . the rule of law?

            If violating the Fourth Amendment means that a child molester gets put in jail, I think we should respect the Fourth Amendment anyway. The rule of law isn’t about only following it when doing so is easy.

            There was a legal, honest, and appropriate way for Comey to behave, back in July, when he realized that the Justice Department was never going to indict.

            He could have and should have resigned.

            When your boss fails to do something that you know and think is wrong, breaks the rule of law, etc., then that’s what you have to do.

            Instead, he did even worse: he went in front of Congress and told everybody a bunch of bullcrap about how Hillary was reckless but not criminal and how HE DECIDED not to indict. Apparently, his underlings got so upset about it, he wasn’t sure he could keep the FBI from leaking the truth. Again, all of that is the result of Comey himself failing to resign when he should have.

        2. Resigning in protest is not a legal maneuver though, and always easier to say than do. Let’s assume youre Comey and you’ve just been briefed on the Weiner emails – what constitutional respecting course do you take? Seriously asking so I’m prepared for the progtards best arguments.

          1. The problem is that what Comey did was ever worse than failing to resign.

            He went in front of Congress, misled the American public about his role and responsibilities, and said a bunch of crap that wasn’t so. He acted as Loretta Lynch’s mouthpiece.

            If the alternative to that was resigning, then that’s what he should have done–hands down.

            I should add that the responsibility to resign under certain circumstances isn’t unusual to Attorney Generals and FBI directors.

            Civil Engineers have that responsibly. No I will not stamp these plans isn’t always enough. When the levee breaks or someone gets killed, that’s not the time for the supervising management to suddenly take a stand.

            “I was just following orders” isn’t an acceptable excuse–certainly not if you could have requested a transfer or resigned.

            You are ethically required to resign if your job requires you to do something unethical, and you can and should be held criminally and civilly responsible for the things you do that hurt people or break the law.

            If your job, as FBI Director, is to uphold the law, you have an even greater burden to live by the laws you’re charged with upholding.

        3. Have you read the internal regulations that have been violated here? Are they law or just policy memos? Do they apply to open investigations or only to new investigations? I haven’t read them because I can’t find them, but I would imagine that they are open to interpretation.

          In my opinion, having information available to the voters, even if the government deems it not appropriate for them to have, is more important than protecting the sanctity of a policy or regulation that 99% of people have never heard of, and 99.999999% of people have never read.

          1. Again, whether we should change the rules is one question.

            Whether those are the rule is another question.

            Rule of law means following the rules. Comey’s job as FBI Director is to enforce the rules.

            Not break them whenever it seems like a good idea to him.

            P.S. Comey’s motives here were not good. He’s no Snowden. He was apparently facing open rebellion within the FBI because of his pathetic performance in July. His hand was probably forced here. He probably thought his underlings were going to leak a ton of information to the press, and he’d rather have his judgement questioned and remain in charge of the FBI than lose control and his job at the FBI.

            1. Yes, but let’s start with figuring out if the rules were actually violated. I suspect many people are accepting that on faith. Are you also doing that? Can you point the specific law/regulation/policy memo which was violated?

              What if it is only a policy memo? Does the rule of law apply to policy memos? Policy memo get rewritten all the time, and come from the top anyway. So was Comey free to rewrite his agency’s own policy memo? The rule of law certainly does not mean policy memo above all else. There are a lot of laws. We’d also have to judge if that policy memo violates other laws.. maybe some law about government transparency.

              1. My faith is no man is 100%, but I’ve read and watched Napolitano for years, and he’s earned a ton of my respect for his accuracy and honesty.

                And this is his area of expertise.

                If you’re saying he’s wrong about the rules, as far as I’m concerned, the burden of proof is on you.

                1. I don’t know if he is wrong about the rules. Napolitano hasn’t pointed to any. Isn’t odd to defend the rule of law, yet not cite it? Does rule of law mean following rules we aren’t aware of, nor allowed to be aware of?

                  Rule of law certainly does not mean rule by policy memo. A law must be passed by some elected body. Policy memos are subject to the whims of appointed bureaucrats. All rules are not the same when it comes to determining if the “rule of law” was violated.

                  While I respect the Napolitano too, he can make mistakes. There are two in this article I can point out:

                  “The FBI’s job is to gather facts and present them to the DOJ, not to make legal evaluations.” – Not true. The FBI’s job is gather facts, interpret them and determine if they must be presented to a prosecutor (which is the DOJ). Law enforcement must always make decisions about whether a law was violated, which is a legal evaluation.Prosecutors would be overwhelmed if every single piece of evidence had to be presented to them.

                  “If he saw something incriminating before he wrote his letter, he saw it unlawfully;” – It is wrong to make this determination at this point. It is possible to come across incriminating evidence legally during an investigation. Once we know how the search was conducted, then we will know if it was viewed illegally.

    2. The 60 day policy is the violation to the rule of law. Sorry, but who else can have a criminal investigation silenced because they have a job interview in the next couple of months?

      It’s a violation of equal protection and should be chucked in the dustbin…along with any elected official that supports it.

      1. I can see questioning that policy.

        But that’s a different question from the question of whether that’s the policy.

        P.S. I can see why they have that rule, too. If President Hillary Clinton can have her cronies launch a hundred public investigations against all her political opponents within 60 days of Election Day 2020, she’ll do that in a heartbeat.

        1. A policy =/= the law.* So he was free to send the letter amending his testimony to the committee chairs.

          *Odd that a Clinton defense throughout was that she never violated the law even if she had violated policy. Now she wants the FBI and DOJ policies to carry the weight of the law when it works against the guy tasked with investigating her criminal enterprise and mishandling of classified and sensitive-but-not-classified data.

          1. I didn’t say what he did should get him jail time.

            I said it undermines the rule of law.

          2. It’s like with Libya.

            I supported Obama’s participation in the Libyan revolution for various reasons.

            I opposed it because it was unconstitutional.

            You can think it’s good that voters know about what Comey brought to their attention.

            And still acknowledge that what Comey did undermined the rule of law.

            1. I just disagree. If anything it upheld the requirements laid out when someone needs to amend sworn testimony before a house or senate committee.

  18. “…who were seeking Clinton’s medical records, unlawfully, from the National Security Agency to ascertain the gravity of her head injury…”

    Maybe that was not the ‘proper’ method for obtaining the information, but how is it unlawful? HIPPA exempts law enforcement, and as the records were already held by a third party – the NSA – what specific law says they cannot provide such information to another Federal agency?

  19. I completely agree with the judge regarding the importance of the rule of law, but in this instance that ship has long since sailed. This is a a DoJ that used the law as a weapon against the Democratic Party’s political enemies and a shield for its friends. The leadership of the DoJ is utterly corrupt, and when the management’s on the take that typically means there’s a culture of corruption throughout the organization. Expecting the DoJ or the FBI to adhere strictly to the rules as unbiased guardians of the laws of the Republic now is not only naive but masochistically foolhardy.

  20. My takeaway from this article is that Comey is no worse, nor better than any of the lot. And the real problem with this whole mess is that any ordinary citizen would quickly wilt under the described regime, while the nomenklatura, their sycophants, and the money men just glide right through it all.

    This sort of behavior gets non-statists thrown in prison. These people will not even lose their law licenses.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/th…..d=30607429

    Of course, given his Veep choice, I doubt GayJay would seriously ruffle even one feather in that nest of thieves.

  21. Well, well, well. Someone at Reason finally has the courage to accurately state just how outrageous Comey’s actions were. I said the same here twice and all the phony libertarians who frequent these pages raged, because, you know, Hillary!

    Comey created this new mess all on his own volition. Not only should he not have had the press conference, he never should have singled out this case as more special than any other.

    And he never should have gone before Congress to speak about a case and why he didn’t bring charges. He should have forced them to subpoena him (they wouldn’t), and even then, he should have refused the subpoena and let them throw the FBI Director in jail if they want. And they never would do that, which is why they wouldn’t subpoena him.

    Any true libertarian would say they only want the bureau charged with investigation to only investigate. And never to offer their opinion about the investigated moral behavior.

    But then, almost all the commenters aren’t libertarian.

    1. That’s a lot of woulda shoulda.

      You want to tackle Lynch now?

      1. Not one woulda. But like the judge, plenty of hindsight shouldas.

        This has become a question of civil liberties. Not one of us should be subject to a bureau that is charged with investigation only to ultimately conclude we shouldn’t be charged, but to then go before the media with judgements about us and our moral behavior. And we also don’t want a Congress to begin to pick over every detail of a case when the investigation bureau said there is no there there.

        Funny how so many “libertarians” here, like you, wang to expand the allowable actions of a law enforcement bureau as well as the functions of Congress.

        Like the judge tried to warn you, you like it because it was against Hillary. You’ll be outraged when it’s someone you like.

        1. We should all strive to eliminate hypocrisy, agreed.

          Also, *I* would be in jail if I handled even one Top Secret message the way Hillary did. Agree?

          1. What she did was outrageous. I hope you would be viewed the same as her in an investigation. Which is why I said Comey never should have said this case was special. And now that he has done that, every one wants further special consideration, the GOPers of course because they already got special treatment (Congress), and now the Dems too.

            It’s a mess he created.

            1. The case was special, idiot. She was the head of a federal department with an extensive knowledge of record retention requirements (according to the many training disclosures she had signed as a Senator and SOS). And she grossly violated those laws, the preservation of records order issued for her devices and her subordinates devices and then thumbed her nose when she narrowly, and by way of a lot of arm-twisting, avoided prosecution.

              She made it special. Every step of the way. To call it otherwise is moronic.

              1. Enjoy your day!

            2. I find it cute how people still think it was about Hillary mishandling classified material, when that wasn’t the core issue of the case. It was one of the nation’s top officials explicitly setting up a private email server to shield the State Dept business from FOIA requests.

            3. I’ll accept everything you posit about Comey if you answer my question about the consequences Hillary is facing and how they compare to what I would expect to receive for handling even one Top Secret document the way she did.

              It’s a mess for sure, and the likely next president set the mess in motion and has yet to face an impartial judgement from anyone – detractors or supporters.

        2. one of us should be subject to a bureau that is charged with investigation only to ultimately conclude we shouldn’t be charged, but to then go before the media with judgements about us and our moral behavior.

          You’re right. And no prosecutor ever has stood on the courthouse steps after losing a trial and lamented that a guilty man or woman was walking free. Comey is the first to ever do so, even though he was put under oath and told to answer questions truthfully.

          You’re a fucking moron.

          1. He’s not a prosecutor, idiot. He is an investigator who refers to prosecutors.

            Glad you showed up to prove who the moron is, someone who wants the to expand the FBI from just investigation to prosecution as well. Well done!

            1. My point is that officers of the state make public judgements about people and their moral character ALL THE TIME when those people avoid prosecution or conviction.

              Or have you never once seen a spox for a police department, mayor or plenty of other officials not tasked with the prosecution decry a not guilty verdict or end of an investigation?

              1. The point you actually made with your moronic statement is exactly why this is a civil liberties issue. We don’t in fact want the FBI to be both investigators AND prosecutors. It’s how we are safe guarded. For them to be both isn’t a check and balance. And Comey in fact ventured into both when he went before the media to talk about things Clinton did wrong.

                Bring charges, or shut up. You should have just shut up.

                1. He never ventured into both. He, as have millions of LEOs across the country, performed an investigation and made public statements about his findings during that investigation as to the negligence and character of the subject of that investigation. It happens every fucking day in this country. It just so happens that in this case it violated some policy that is in violation of equal protection (since nobody else can use a pending job interview to avoid the disclosure).

                  Also, his “public statement” was a letter amending his sworn testimony to various committee chairs. It was directed solely to them, which is hardly what I’d call “public”. But even if it was, what’s wrong with publicly amending the sworn testimony you gave in a public hearing that was open to…the public?

              2. That all that has to be explained to you as a supposed libertarian is astonishing. But then, you’re not, are you?

                1. So amending sworn testimony by sending a letter to the committee chair of the committee you gave SWORN TESTIMONY to in OPEN SESSION is acting as both investigator and prosecutor?

                  What planet are you from?

                  1. Good try at changing the point. When he held a press conference and told the public his thoughts on what Clinton was guilty of was venturing into prosecution. Even prosecutors give a defendant their day in court, which Comey didn’t provide when he said no charges, but here are all the things in his opinion Clinton did wrong. The letter was just further special consideration he gave this case when he shouldn’t have.

                    Have some fun today in Texas!

                    1. You really have the shortest of memories. Or the most selective.

                      Are you saying no cop has ever given a press conference saying he thought someone was guilty of a crime, either before or after a trial had concluded? Seriously?

                      You must not get good tv reception in your cave, troll.

                    2. Please give hillary her day in court then. Oh wait…

                    3. Don’t have to wait. No charges were filed.

        3. The hypocrisy is string with tis one. You are just fine with federal agencies acting as investigator, prosecutor, and judge when it comes to your religion. You only find your commitment to civil liberties when gaia is bleeding from her whatever.

          1. Good try. Let me know when a federal agency acted as all 3 on climate change. In fact let’s look at two cases right now.

            Did you know Lynch has asked the FBI to investigate whether or not Exxon may have violated racketeering laws? You should be glad Comey isn’t all three. And you should hope that if he rejects charges that he doesn’t decide to hold a press conference. But now, who knows?

            How about the NY AG? He is investigating. If he thinks laws are violated, he refers the case.

            Thanks for proving my point about how selective you are.

            1. Me thinks the bitch babbleth too much.

    2. Jackand Ace|11.3.16 @ 10:28AM|#
      “Well, well, well. Someone at Reason finally has the courage to accurately state just how outrageous Comey’s actions were”
      Well, well, well, Jack found an opinion piece with which he agrees, declares victory.

      “Any true libertarian would say they only want the bureau charged with investigation to only investigate. And never to offer their opinion about the investigated moral behavior.
      But then, almost all the commenters aren’t libertarian.”
      And lefty twit chooses to lecture others on libertarianism!
      Fuck off, lefty twit.

    3. Hey asshole, you are in no way an arbiter of anything libertarian. Far from it. Instead you are a self serving Marxist piece of shot without an subatomic particle of integrity.

    4. Jackland, you liberal fascists were once such GIANT fans of Comey’s principles! What happened?

      “a wonderful and tough career public servant”
      “This is a great man. We are privileged in this country to have him as director of the FBI” – Nancy Pelosi
      “No one can question the integrity of Comey” – Harry Reid

      Here’s a great series of video vignettes put together by the Morning Joe crowd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSRnfm0MFws

  22. Maybe Comey dropped Bomb because Justice was stonewalling investigation and he saw reporting to Congress as means to get investigation back on track?

  23. Interestingly enough, Scott Adams has much different take on Comey’s motivation. see dilbert dot com

    1. Thanks for the head’s up. I just went and read it.
      His theory didn’t add up to me.

  24. I love you Judge, but you’re wrong about this one.

    Comey isn’t J. Edgard Hoover, he’s Mark Felt, except more open and transparent.

  25. I think we should be focusing our anger more on Loretta Lynch.

    She’s the one who refused to empanel a grand jury.

    There are a couple of points that I don’t think anyone in this thread are addressing–beyond the fact that an indictment was never a possibility.

    1) Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on the tarmac mere days before Comey’s announcement.

    Loretta Lynch might as well have been working for the Clinton Foundation.

    There was never going to be an indictment.

    2) Barack Obama emailed Hillary under a pseudonym, apparently after he knew her email was insecure.

    That means that if what Hillary did was illegal, then what Obama did was illegal, too. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President.

    There. Was. Never. Going. To. Be. An. Indictment.

    It wasn’t even an ex-parrot. That was never a possibility.

    Never.

    Knowing that, Comey should have resigned in protest. That was the only correct, honest, legal, and appropriate thing for Comey to do under those circumstances.

    He should have resigned like the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, did during the Saturday Night Massacre.

    1. But before he resigned, he should have taken testimony from Lynch, Obama, and Bill Clinton. They should be on record, lying about facts so that later they can pay the price. Some day, the truth will out.

      1. Get real dude. He cannot compel Obama to testify, or to do anything for that matter. It’s called “Executive Privilege”. And at best it’s questionable as to whether he could even compel either Clinton to Lynch to testify.

        1. A refusal by any of those players to answers questions which would assist the FBI in an investigation would be instructive, Dude.

      2. His resigning would have started a media circus.

        He would have been called in front of a congressional committee to testify under oath about why he resigned.

        That was what Obama and Hillary feared most.

        The nuclear option.

    2. #2 – Exactly, I’ve said this many times. The rules state in general terms that if you see someone not using proper Info Security and do not report it you are complaisant with it. If you exchange communication with that someone using the improper methods you are just a guilty.

      I bet there are a whole slue of people in D.C. that communicated with her using her private server for gov. business and they are all guilty.

  26. the FBI would resume investigating her emails based upon the belief that more of them may be located in the laptop of disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

    That’s not true.

    I continue to be amazed how people write articles about this stuff but continue to pay little attention to detail.

    No, there was no “Belief” – they did a comprehensive review of the metadata and saw enormous amounts of email that were Clinton/Huma back and forth, often overlapping with subjects/dates that had been of key-interest to the DC-based investigation regarding whether she’d mishandled classified intel.

    They (the investigating office in NY) were consequently obligated to inform the main office of the existence of this stuff and its potential relevance to the Intel investigation, while also getting warrants to read said email as part of their own investigation into Clinton Foundation related issues.

    The Judge is still right about the nut of his point –

    Comey’s progress report to Congress is prohibited by the internal regulations of the DOJ and the FBI?and by the canons of legal ethics that regulate lawyers. Comey had no obligation to send the letter at any time; moreover, sending it last week was a direct violation of DOJ and FBI rules that prohibit all public announcements about candidates for public office within 60 days of Election Day.

    …but his preamble to it isn’t really at all accurate.

    1. It wasn’t a public pronouncement. It was an amendment to sworn testimony sent directly, and solely, to various committee chairs he had testified before. It is perfectly correct for him to do so. And it’s perfectly correct for the committee chairs to release it to the public since they were amendments to testimony given in open session…open hearings that Clinton demanded, by the way.

      1. I’m wrong on that last bit. His testimony was never demanded by Hillary. She demanded hers be in open session.

    2. If you’re talking about the recent letter, It wasn’t a “progress report”. Using that phrase is disingenuous.

      It was a notification that investigation changed from “off” to “on”.

      It wasn’t a public announcement.
      As far as “obligation”. I’m not obligated to help an old lady cross the street, but I still might judge it to be a good thing to do.

  27. Comey had no obligation to send the letter at any time; moreover, sending it last week was a direct violation of DOJ and FBI rules that prohibit all public announcements about candidates for public office within 60 days of Election Day.

    And you realize those rules (which are rules– not laws I’d suspect) are designed to protect the powerful, right? It basically sets up public officials running for office as a protected class.

    1. I don’t have a problem with the rules, they may well serve to curb corrupt sabotage by powerful gov officials.

      But Comey didn’t break the rules. He made a technical and narrow notification to congressional committee heads with an interest in the status.

  28. This is a good thread.

  29. Of course he should have waited, until when?
    I guess that any investigation into a possible crime should always have a date agreed upon between the investigative body and the investigating entity.

    And new information would come to light when you are an excommunicated member of the Clinton Clan facing jail time, namely Wiener, and his access to the info on the computer of Hillary’s Consigliere.

    When 16 year olds get jacked up sending nude pictures of themselves to other 16 year olds, Wiener knows what his Dikileaks are going to mean for him.

    Probably Huma should have looked in the file named “Insurance”.

  30. Of course he should have waited, until when?
    I guess that any investigation into a possible crime should always have a date agreed upon between the investigative body and the investigating entity.

    And new information would come to light when you are an excommunicated member of the Clinton Clan facing jail time, namely Wiener, and his access to the info on the computer of Hillary’s Consigliere.

    When 16 year olds get jacked up sending nude pictures of themselves to other 16 year olds, Wiener knows what his Dikileaks are going to mean for him.

    Probably Huma should have looked in the file named “Insurance”.

  31. http://www.newyorker.com/news/…..omeys-move

    Interesting article from the New Yorker.

    TLDR: If Hillary wins this being leaked will keep her winning from being “questioned.”

  32. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how Comey’s action amounts of a violation of anyone’s due process rights.

    She was a former secretary of state. She set up a private server and “carelessly” handled classified information there. And now apparently a bunch of her emails are found on a private citizen’s device. This isn’t like the police finding a piece of joint on my yard and warning my employer that I might be investigated for running a drug operation.

    Anthony Weiner is not (or should not be) authorized to receive emails stored in her server. How does a disgraced sexual predator have access to thousands of them? That alone should incriminate Clinton. Verifying the content is cherry on top.

    This election is doing weird things to people. When have libertarians sacrificed transparency for the sake of government policy? If Comey held onto this information and Wikileaks made it public, they would denounce Assange? The effect on the election would be the same. “That’s different, they’re private organization” OK, but then the government would have justification to shut them down.

  33. To my friends who have rejoiced in James Comey’s letter, please take warning that, as More accurately predicted, the tables can be turned. If there is any moral lesson in all this, it is that the history of human freedom consists of paying careful attention to constitutional guarantees and legal protections, no matter the reputation of the accused.

    The tables finally have turned, this time on a couple of power hungry, ruthless and avaricious grifters hitherto immune to consequences for anything they’ve done.

    Maybe something good will come of it

    1. If nothing comes of it, there should be an armed insurrection.

  34. This article shrank my johnson.

  35. Good article. Having a looter persuasion judge reveal background makes it more even-handed here. I personally could dispense with ALL the articles about the Kleptocrats, but at least the female one is female. That’s one individual right preserved for half the population right there, unless the bookies again miscalculated the Rexit. Obama being black (reassuring for many voters) was icing on the cake after the GOP wrecked the economy. On the other issues the difference is irrelevant–either too far to the right of the decimal point or not a presidential attribute. My concern is to get so many LP votes that The Kleptocracy has to me blatantly obvious about changing its policies to avoid running afoul of LP spoiler votes.

  36. A couple of points. The FBI knew about the emails on Weiner’s laptop weeks ago. They didn’t even try for a search warrant till after Comey sent his letter to Congress. Why the stalling? Then he followed his actions up with releasing documents from 2005 about Bill’s involvement with some shady character that he wasn’t prosecuted for at the time. Both occurred 7 days before the election? Comey purposefully did what he did to (in the words of Trump) ‘rig the election’. It’s too coincidental. I don’t buy his excuse.

    1. I am shocked, SHOCKED that two looter candidates fascinated by the initiation of force to take what ain’t theirs, would stoop to saying things that aren’t true!

      1. Do you use the same kind of verbiage when speaking to others in person? If so, how often are you beaten? Or do people just homogeneously shun you?

    2. Whatever. Given how badly things are stacked to ensure democrat victory, I’m not going to shed a tear if a few unfair things happen to democrat candidates. By rights, Hillary should be in a Supermax facility for the rest of her unholy life.

  37. Seems to me that what I laughingly refer to as “credibility” regarding the government, it’s bureaucracy and agencies is more and more a fleeting glimpse of a thing that no longer exists.

  38. Judge Nap is wrong.

    By the precedent set in King v. Burwell, language clearly not present in the Affordable Care Act explicitly states that the rule of law does not apply to Democrats.

  39. I couldn’t disagree more with this article. First of all, the Justice Department should be criticized more than the FBI; with Loretta Lynch have secret meetings with Clinton on the tarmac and attempting to block a FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, it is much better identified as the injustice department. Comey’s big mistake was not indicting Hillary the first time as there was ample evidence even then for an indictment. But still the FBI was the last firewall for freedom, as there was a rebellion among FBI agents who were aware of Hillary’s perjury, obstruction of justice, and treason, and pressured Comey into renewing the case lest they leak evidence of Hillary’s multiple crimes. Checks and balances are essential to a free society, and when one party controls the presidency and corrupts the Justice Department, the FBI, and Supreme Court, they will be able to get away with virtually anything and the rest of us will be helpless to don anything about it.

  40. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ??????? http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  41. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  42. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  43. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  44. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  45. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.