FBI

What the Hell Was John McCain Trying to Say When He Questioned Comey?

In comparing Trump and Clinton, the senator apparently meant to highlight the distinction between impropriety and criminality.

|

C-SPAN

"I'm a little confused," former FBI Director James Comey said while being questioned by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday. Comey was not alone. Many people who watched the exchange or read the transcript were confused too. So was McCain, judging from his references to "President Comey" and his suggestion that the FBI had investigated Clinton for possible collaboration with Russian operatives who were trying to sink her presidential campaign. In a statement he issued after the hearing, the senator offered this explanation for his comments:

What I was trying to get at was whether Mr. Comey believes that any of his interactions with the President rise to the level of obstruction of justice. In the case of Secretary Clinton's emails, Mr. Comey was willing to step beyond his role as an investigator and state his belief about what "no reasonable prosecutor" would conclude about the evidence. I wanted Mr. Comey to apply the same approach to the key question surrounding his interactions with President Trump—whether or not the President's conduct constitutes obstruction of justice.

There is an instructive analogy here, although Comey's treatment of Clinton vs. Trump does not necessarily reflect a "double standard," as McCain suggested during the hearing. In Clinton's case, Comey concluded that her sloppy email practices as secretary of state did not justify prosecution because there was little evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. Although a charge based on "gross negligence" might have been feasible, he said, it would not have been just. "In our system of law, there's a thing called mens rea," Comey said, referring to the state of mind required for a conviction."We don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do."

Applying that standard to Trump, it is not enough to know what he did; we also need to know his intent, which is the difference between impropriety and criminality. If we accept Comey's account (which certainly seems more trustworthy than Trump's), it is clear that the president acted inappropriately by demanding the FBI director's personal loyalty, asking him to drop the bureau's investigation of a former aide, and pressing him to publicly state that Trump himself was not under investigation. Trump's subsequent firing of Comey, although clearly within his authority as president, also looks suspect, especially since he eventually admitted that decision was related to his annoyance at the FBI's investigation of possible ties between his campaign and Russian meddling in the election. But whether Trump's behavior amounts to a crime depends on whether he acted "corruptly," meaning he had in mind the "improper purpose" of obstructing justice.

When Trump interceded on behalf of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, for example, was he trying to cover up crimes, or was he naively trying to help "a good guy" who in his view had been treated unfairly? Comey declined to speculate on Trump's state of mind, leaving that determination to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. "I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct," he said. "I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning. But that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards, to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense."

McCain seems to think that position is a cop-out: If Comey was prepared to conclude that Clinton did not intend to break the law, why can't he cut Trump the same slack? But as Comey pointed out, the FBI completed its investigation of Clinton's email practices before he announced his conclusions. By contrast, the investigation of Russian election meddling is ongoing, while Mueller's investigation of possible obstruction has barely begun. It is entirely possible that Mueller will turn up additional evidence that bears on the intent behind Trump's interactions with Comey, such as the president's contemporaneous conversations with other witnesses or his contacts with intelligence officials whom he reportedly enlisted to help clear the "cloud" generated by the Russia probe.

If McCain's post-hearing statement obscures the distinction between what Comey knew about Clinton's intentions and what we know about Trump's, his questions to Comey during the hearing blurred the situation beyond recognition. "You got one candidate who you're done with and another candidate that you have a long way to go [with]," he observed. "She's one of the candidates. But in her case, you say there will be no charges, and in the case of President Trump…the investigation continues." McCain seemed to conflate the Russia probe with the email investigation, saying "you made the announcement there would be no charges brought against then-Secretary Clinton for any activities involved in the Russia involvement in our—engagement in our election."

The 80-year-old senator attributed his puzzling performance to a lack of sleep. "I get the sense from Twitter that my line of questioning today went over people's heads," he said. "Maybe going forward I shouldn't stay up late watching the Diamondbacks night games."

Others blamed McCain's age. The Twitter response to which he alluded mixed mockery with sympathy. "John McCain is 80 years old and spent his 30s being tortured as a POW," said video game developer Brianna Wu, a Democrat who is running for Congress in Massachusetts. "If you're making fun of him, remember one day you'll be old too."

NEXT: Friday Funnies: Not Enough Mandates

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. “In our system of law, there’s a thing called mens rea,”
    Is there anymore, though? I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton is the only person that has been saved by mens rea lately.

    1. mens rea has been effectively removed as an element of many crimes.

      The gross negligence standard for criminality is becoming more and more common and that should scare people. It means that you can be convicted of a crime not because you intended to violate the law but because some judge says you should not have done it and you should have known better which causes harm to person or property.

      Proving mens rea can be difficult for prosecutors, so the courts just phase it out.
      Getting convictions with juries can be difficult and expensive for prosecutors, so the courts just intimidate defendants to take plea bargains.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.webcash10.com

    2. I can at least agree in theory with Comey in that mens rea is important, but it also seems to me that you’re correct in that it doesn’t seem to be something ‘we the people’ enjoy as a consideration.

      If I received classified information on my Yahoo! email on accident, I would be prison regardless of my intention. Period.

      1. “If I received classified information on my Yahoo! email on accident, I would be prison regardless of my intention. Period.”
        What? No.

        Receiving classified information isn’t a problem. It’s sharing classified information with un-cleared folks that’s a problem. That’s why anyone can go over to wikileaks and read whatever they want, but if someone with a security clearance repeats something they just read off wikileaks they’re in trouble.

        1. Another point, sharing classified information is only a problem if you’ve got a security clearance yourself.

          That’s why Manning faced charges and Snowden faces charges if he ever returns, but regular Joe Blow can e-mail stuff from wikileaks to all his friends without consequence. Assange is more complicated because they really really want to go after him, but what they eventually nail him for (if they do) will probably be way more complicated then simply sharing classified info (as he didn’t have a clearance).

        2. 18 U.S. Code ? 798 – Disclosure of classified information

          (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information?
          (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

          (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

          (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

          (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes?

          Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

          So, Hillary sharing classified information with people who absolutely did not have clearance isn’t a crime because…

          Notably, she didn’t even pay a fine.

        3. As for Wikileaks:

          A) It is not a U.S. website, and therefore can publish all it wants regardless of U.S. law.

          B) Once classified information has been published, it is no longer classified for obvious reasons.

          I should have clarified though, in that if I emailed myself classified information to my Yahoo! account I would be in prison, since it’s a non-secure system.

          1. B) Once classified information has been published, it is no longer classified for obvious reasons.

            Incorrect. When I had a clearance they were very clear that just because you see something that’s classified published in a news article or on the internet, it’s still classified. It’s classified until the classifying authority (usually the government agency that classified it in the first place) decides it isn’t.

            I can’t tell you how many times I saw classified shit published in the open.

            1. Hmm…good point I suppose but at that point it’s status as classified is a result of the government being slow and retarded since how can something be a secret if it’s also common knowledge.

              1. There are a lot of things ‘everybody knows’ that the individual with clearance still must safeguard.

                Just because ‘everybody knows’ does NOT make something less classified.

              2. Because if things became declassified as soon as they leaked then the government would have to comment on the accuracy of every single leaked document, which would fall under FOIA. And because documents remaining classified is an important way to avoid scrutiny in court and Congress.

                1. But I agree that it is ludicrous that the existence of the drone program is still classified even though Obama actually mentioned it in an interview! (Wasn’t a NYT article about drones one of the pieces of “classified” info on HRC’s server?)

  2. Drug test congress. Or perhaps a dementia test.

    1. Remember McCain almost was president 2008-2016.

      1. It was never “almost.” The Republicans threw McCain up as a sacrificial goat because they knew that 2008 was going to be a referendum on the Bush presidency, and at that point the Democrats could run anybody short of Zombie Hitler and win (the Ds almost tested this by nominating Hillary, but fortunately for them a well-spoken empty suit stepped up instead).

      2. loveconstitution1789|6.9.17 @ 8:47AM|#
        “Remember McCain almost was president 2008-2016.”

        We could, and did, do worse.

        1. I was just hoping that whether McCain or Obama won, congress would be a check to both of their ridiculous agendas. Obama is a socialist and McCain would have got thousands more Americans killed in neo-con hostile takeovers.

          Of course, Obama won and he got a Democrat Congress to push thru all sorts of garbage until 2010.

          Of course, McCain lost and got senile.

          1. It turns out that it didn’t matter if it was McCain or Obama, we were going to bomb the middle east regardless.

            1. ^Exactly. No matter who you elect you get McCain’s war anyway

  3. I heard McCain’s question and immediately thought… “What the heck did he just say?”

    I think it’s well past time the good people of Arizona retire McCain. More for his votes than his flubs.

  4. “We don’t want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do.”

    Uh-huh.

    1. Well, you know. The RIGHT people. Not the little guys, fuck them.

  5. Senile dementia is a hell of a situation.

  6. “In Clinton’s case, Comey concluded that her sloppy email practices as secretary of state did not justify prosecution because there was little evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information.”
    That is not what Comey said. He said “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
    FBI Comey statement
    That federal statute does not require the violation to be intentional. Furthermore, a prosecutor could argue that Clinton intentionally mishandled classified information when she intentionally circumvented federal policy for handling classified on government equipment.

    As Comey does, he felt that Clinton would get off somehow under the Obama administration and did not want to be fired by Obama. Comey wrongly assumed that he could bungle that investigation and Trump would keep him on as FBI Director because… FBI Director 10 year terms.

    1. ^^ yep. This dog’ll hunt.

    2. You are right. When reading this article, I thought, boy does this writer suck. The editor must have received a fist full of Benjamins from Sullum.

  7. I’m not as concerned with McCain’s line of inquiry than the fact that he was unable to reconcile Comey’s simple answer that they were two different situations with his line of inquiry, and kept basically repeating the same question while making unsupported statements that they were equivalent. He might as well have been shouting his questions at a ficus with how unable he was to process the answers he got.

    1. Geezer dude needs a nap.

  8. Forget criminal intent, we punish people in this country on the mere suspicion that they’ve broken the law, intentionally or not. Maybe Comey’s never heard of civil asset forfeiture.

    1. That’s different, because….its “civil” not “criminal” therefore not a penalty requiring Due Process.

      Government hacks can come up with all sorts of reasons to usurp the constitution.

    2. Which is why Drumpf is in jail for defrauding Drumpf univ. customers

      1. The organization was not an accredited university or college. It did not confer college credit, grant degrees, or grade its students
        Trump University was also the subject of two class action lawsuits in federal court. The lawsuits centered around allegations that Trump University defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics. The company and the lawsuits against it received renewed interest due to Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 presidential election. Despite repeatedly insisting that he would not settle, Trump settled all three lawsuits in November 2016 for a total of $25 million after being elected to the presidency.
        -wiki

        You get what you pay for. Trump clearly settled these lawsuits because he had bigger fish to fry as President.

        If you think that was fraud, you might want to look at what universities give young people in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars. And most of those are accredited schools.

    3. Only people below a certain wealth/income level.

      Once people have enough assets to afford the lawyers, a lot of those finer points of law start to matter again.

      1. Some would argue that the solution is to eliminate gratuitous laws, reduce prosecutory discretion, and stop incentivizing law enforcement and prosecutors to put as many people as possible in prison. Others, of course, think we should just put more rich people in prison to even the distribution. I’d say the former position is the less wasteful and more humane way.

  9. Bull crap. Clinton knew what she was doing when she had a private server installed. Then there is the deleted emails and lost or destroyed lap tops and phones. Matt is right,it is not the same,it is worse.

  10. “In Clinton’s case, Comey concluded that her sloppy email practices as secretary of state did not justify prosecution because there was little evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information.”

    Let’s not miss the point that Comey could not have made any such conclusion.

    The decision about whether to prosecute is made by prosecutors at the Justice Department–specifically the Attorney General.

    The FBI director doesn’t have the authority to make the determination about whether to prosecute. In fact, the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton could not have been made by Comey. That decision could only have been made by Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, who was Comey’s boss at the time.

    There must have been a conversation between Loretta Lynch and Comey telling him to kill the investigation–because Comey killed it and announced there would be no charges. Did Comey keep detailed records of his conversations with Loretta Lynch?

  11. Did Comey keep detailed records of his conversations with Loretta Lynch?

    More to the point, did Barack Obama tell Loretta Lynch to kill the investigation into Hillary’s email server?

    Obama had an incentive to do so. It is a public fact that Obama sent classified email to Hillary Clinton’s email server using a pseudonym, presumably to avoid detection and presumably because he knew that Hillary’s server was illegal.

    If Hillary Clinton handled classified email illegally, then Barack Obama did, too. That is a likely explanation for why Loretta Lynch told Comey to kill the Hillary Clinton investigation; regardless, as the FBI director, Comey had no authority to decide not to prosecute. That determination could only have been made by the Attorney General–and must have been communicated to Comey.

    The open question remains whether Obama told Lynch not to seek charges.

    1. If you start from the perspective that Comey is “cover yer ass” kind of guy then this all makes sense. If Lynch also tries to throw him under the bus then his notes of his conversation with her will no doubt come out.

    2. Only for morons. Lynch recused herself and announced that the DoJ would go with whatever the FBI concludes

      1. Do you have a link for that?

      2. Hint: Deciding to defer to the recommendations of your subordinates when you decide whether to pursue charges is not recusing yourself from deciding whether to pursue charges.

        1. Not to mention that deferring such a decision to the FBI in the first place is in and of itself a conflict of interest for the FBI in particular. The decision goes up the chain, not down. Obama didn’t want to make that call though, is my opinion.

  12. Just for the record:

    “President Obama used a pseudonym in emails to Hillary Clinton, documents from the FBI released Friday show.

    The FBI released a large batch documents related to its investigation into Clinton’s private email server Friday afternoon. The files include notes from interviews with several top Clinton aides, including longtime adviser Huma Abedin.

    The FBI said in its notes from an Abedin interview that the address on a Clinton email chain “is believed to be a pseudonym used by the President.”

    Abedin said she didn’t recognize the name and “expressed her amazement” that Obama used a pseudonym.

    The FBI said she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?”

    She reportedly asked if she could have a copy of the email.

    Abedin also told the FBI that Clinton’s team had to inform the White House that she was changing her email address so that the president could receive messages from her.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…..th-clinton

    1. Well we certainly wouldn’t want this chicken to go unfucked for any length of time.

    2. So more emailghazi is what you think will make Drumpf’s cover up go away.

      1. “emailghazi”
        “Drumpf’s”

        Oh, oh, look!
        A new infantile lefty!

        1. Or an old lefty who changed their handle.

        2. And once again, a thread derails into a Clinton shit flinging contest.

      2. The subject of the thread is what McCain was talking about.

        This is what McCain was talking about.

        1. Rubio’s question about why the ONLY thing not leaked was that Trump wasn’t being investigated was also key. Why was EVERYTHING but that one thing leaked to the press?

          And why did Comey not do a damned thing about the leaks?

          Why would Comey lower how bad the Clinton investigation was? Why would he give immunity to so many people, allow one person who was given immunity to serve as Hillary’s second during questions, and then destroy Mills’ computer rather than seizing it?

          McCain is a moron and a geezer, but Comey is a hack. Nothing more.

      3. “So more emailghazi is what you think will make Drumpf’s cover up go away.”

        I still can’t figure out what they think Trump covered up.

        What are they accusing him of? Does anyone know?

        1. They ignore the part of every testimony where they repeatedly say there is no evidence whatsoever of collusion or any wrongdoing of any sort, and concentrate on the parts where Trump is a bad person as if that’s a crime. (And, frankly, I agree that he is a bad person but Trump isn’t the first POTUS that meets that measure.)

          They also ignore the part where they repeatedly say that Trump is not, and never has been, the subject of any investigation whatsoever.

          This is going to end up in a Bill Clinton situation, I think. It’s probably unavoidable. If the Democrats win back the house/senate Trump is getting impeached even if they don’t have any smoking gun by then. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.

      4. Which coverup are you talking about? To date, there has been absolutely no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. On the other hand, there are numerous investigations needed regarding Obamonkey and Shrillary, including her illegal use of the private server, her deletion of official emails and purposeful destruction of government cel phones, his giving $1.7B to the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and his last-minute executive order opening up private information center on millions of American citizens to his political hacks in many agencies, etc. And we haven’t even touched on Hillary and Bill’s pay-for-play schemes while she was Secretary of State or the convenient “robbery” slaying of Seth Rich.

        1. Oh yeah? What about Watergate?

  13. McCain was saying he thinks it’s time for term limits and mandatory retirement ages in the legislature.

    1. Vote everybody out, every time.

  14. Hey Jacob, stop being Drumpf’s cock holster and answer why reason.com usually dies to cover free speech issues is avoiding this one:

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/0…..t-exhibit/

    That’s right, because….

    1. “That’s right, because….”

      It’s not the subject of this article.
      Fucking lefty imbeciles. Look asshole, you lost. Get over it, loser.

      1. Seems an interesting parallel story to the LGBT Trump fan that didn’t get invited to a parade yesterday, though. Pretty interesting that Reason didn’t slap it on their front page.

        Pity. I come here for the least-partisan news I find about America, and Reason usually does a good job of holding teams blue and red to account (though the comments here skew right, and are creepily obsessed with the loser of the last presidential election).

        Must have just been an oversight. Plus the liberal media is already awash with anti-Trump propaganda.

    2. Is that you Stephen Colbert?


  15. Comey concluded that her sloppy email practices as secretary of state did not justify prosecution because there was little evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information.

    So purposefully creating an unsecured server to run classified information through in an effort to avoid FOIA isn’t mens rea, eh? Cool story, but I can’t possibly see how that’s true.

    1. Anyone else would have been indicted.

      Good riddance Comey!

      1. If you’re still bitching about the email thing and then elsewhere you say “Nothing to see here!” when it comes to the current Trump investigation, why should anyone take anything you ever say seriously?

        You guys don’t even bother with pretending not to be on anyone’s TEAM anymore. Sad.

        1. If you did something like that Tony in just even a place of business guess what would happen?

          How could anyone conclude what she did was ‘nothing to see’? It’s beyond retarded.

          Believe you me, progressives like you would have lost whatever is left of your sane marbles if Trump did some stupid thing like that.

          Worse, you waste your energy on her. She’d throw you in prison for far less if it meant furthering her career.

          1. Prison- where you would then have a sudden heart attack and die.

        2. There is a TON of evidence Hillary broke the law.

          There is ZERO evidence for the Russian conspiracy theories.

          This is an easy distinction to understand, if you think for yourself, instead of being a sockpuppet.

        3. It’s called empiricism Tony, in that there is clear and obvious evidence that Hillary did exactly what I said and that it is a matter of clear law that it was a violation. You can’t spin that away. It’s written law, and we have the FBI director himself telling us what was done. He was right, too, in that no prosecutor would want to be the one who brought down a Presidential candidate before the election, but that’s disgusting to me since it tells all of us little guys that there are two sets of rules which flies in the face of even the Classical Liberal ethos.

          As for Trump, I have so far seen zero evidence of anything. Absolutely zero. So, on balance, I’m afraid I’m not able to shit my pants at this time over alleged wrongdoing over actual wrongdoing.

          Needless to say, if evidence comes out in the future that Trump did anything truly illegal I’ll be changing my mind. This is what is know as rational behavior.

          I would go so far as to say that what Trump supposedly said and did could be considered incredibly stupid if true, but last I checked stupid doesn’t get you impeached unless it has an accompanying violation of statue.

  16. “If Comey was prepared to conclude that Clinton did not intend to break the law,”

    Crock of shit and points to how politicians and civil servants can be weasels on parsing words where ethics are concerned.

    You will never convince an upstanding and moral individual who knows the difference between right and wrong that Hillary didn’t know what she was doing. It’s basic school yard stuff. After all, here’s a wench who has been in politics for over 30 years and was a lawyer. So don’t tell me she didn’t know setting up an unsecured private server was illegal. it takes a special kind of hyper-partisan hipster rube with sloth like intellectual reflexes to believe that. Of course she did and she doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

    Heck, it’s even probably the least dubious action she undertook for all we know given her track record. Never mind people likely languish in prison where matters of national security are concerned for far less. Yet, she roams the earth like a sickly T-Rex leaving a destruction of shit filled with self-pity, self-entitlement and faux-righteousness on her path.

    So do what you have to do to protect a woman who deserves no such defense but just don’t tell me she didn’t know.

    They’re all dead, Carlo…Barzini, Cugno,, Tartaglia…

    1. in her path

    2. Although your contention seems rather fatuous to me (I disliked you for your use of the word “wench”), I have to say your writing style is…

      …just….

      …beautiful.

  17. Cute how C-SPAN managed to put horns on him.

  18. Can the comments discuss the article and things going on right now instead of HRC emails? The Republicans on these forums think the HRC emails were treason etc, etc. She is not president. She lost. Anyone saying anything critical about Trump is a hypocrite because HRC email treason etc. etc.. Everybody has heard that line already. It’s not a new line of reasoning and it’s not particularly relevant to the here and now. Stating that HRC is bad, evil, treasonous, and that Democratic voters are hypocrites is not a good argument for not looking into any suspicious behavior of the Trump administration during the transition and since.

    Completely separate from the HRC email situation: McCain sounds senile. Trump “hopes” the FBI director will not investigate Michael Flynn. “Hopes”? Really?

    1. He also didn’t stop the investigation. Trump still has not ended the investigation. Nobody in the FBI has indicated any limitations on their investigation.

      Feel free to explain what Trump did…since Comey had said he wasn’t under investigation and told Trump that three times. Which we were told he’d NEVER do.

  19. If John could make such distinctions without confusion, he would have graduated higher in his class at Annapolis.

  20. John McCain, the Resistance’s new favorite Republican. Someone tell me, in what way is this guy not worse than Trump?

    I guess he shares progressive ambivalence toward the first amendment, but to me he looks worse in just about every single way. The big reason he hates Trump is because the prospect of a friendly relationship with Russia softens his war boner.

  21. John McCain, the Resistance’s new favorite Republican. Someone tell me, in what way is this guy not worse than Trump?

    I guess he shares progressive ambivalence toward the first amendment, but to me he looks worse in just about every single way. The big reason he hates Trump is because the prospect of a friendly relationship with Russia softens his war boner.

  22. McCain is just doing a CYA because he knows he’s on the short list of “RINOs against Trump”. Now that Trump has an advantage, he doesn’t want to be “dishonorably discharged” during the swamp drain. He’s looking for a sympathy exit with full honors.

  23. John McCain is a mummy. But still in Congress. There are so many of them. And, yes, I, as a Libertarian, voted for him; but told him to leave.

    He was RIGHT to point out the failure of Comey in the Hillary Clinton email mess. Comey stated an open-and-shut criminal case against Clinton, then did an about face that should have shocked a first year law student. He declared no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Clinton. Not if his or her job depended on it! Comey then exited stage left with no questions. But the facts he stated should have put her in jail. My law degree is a JD from Northwestern University. McCain was right but incompetent in calling him out on it.

    Apart from that, John McCain, bless his soul, is way too old and disoriented to be in the Senate. I has been true for quite some time. I have told him so. I live in Arizona. But look at the alternatives!

  24. Who cares what McCain says? The man is senile, bitter, and angry. He hasn’t made any sense for years.

    1. Agree. He needs to retire while he still has a shred of respect left from his Vietnam POW experience.

  25. “[V]ideo game developer Brianna Wu, a Democrat who is running for Congress in Massachusetts.”

    Why is this dishonest opportunist worthy of being quoted, now?

  26. Comey said “We don’t want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do.” So let’s see – Hillary knowingly set up a secret server in someone’s bathroom closet to handle her emails and, as Secretary of State, knew she was sending emails regarding official State Department business through this server. Sorry, but as a 34-year federal civil servant, I would have been fired, probably prosecuted, and would never been allowed to work for the government again for a similar mishandling of classified information. Oh wait, my mistake… I forgot about those special exceptions to the rules for the ruling class.

  27. Old John is well past his sell date. Hope the good people of Arizona figure that out next time around.

  28. So is Reason not covering the Qatar crisis? Surely more important than the “he said, she said” platitudes being flung around Washington recently?

  29. Hmm, this sounds like a standard Republican strategy: have a POTUS so dumb that he doesn’t know he’s breaking the law …

  30. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    follow this link?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  31. Yet another argument for Congressional term limits.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.