On Comey/Clinton “If not for Comey I would have won”

Or more rationally, if not for Comey you’d have been indicted. Comey gave her a pass because she was running for President and made noises about “no intent” in her security breaches. Oddly enough the statute makes no mention of intent. Mr Petreaus was indicted and lost his job over a security breach because he told his non-security cleared biographer his agenda for the day (which was marked classified). Did he intend for that security breach to get into enemy hands? Did the data in the breach leak to people who misused it? Answer no.

Seems pretty clear in the implementation of the law Ms Clinton should have been indicted. To pretend “I would have won” if he hadn’t brought this up is laughable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Boonton@gmail.com says:

    Strange, the stated reason Mr. Comey was fired was that he was mean and unfair to Mrs. Clinton…not that he ‘gave her a pass’.

    The more relevant doctrine here is mens rae. To establish a crime you have to show that Clinton knowingly put national secrets in jeopardy by using an insecure email server. Right off the bat you have a few problems…one is that many (possibly all) of the stuff market secret was actually designated secret after the fact. Another is that odds are Clinton’s private email server was probably as secure or more secure than government email. Given the mass leaking of gov’t documents and reports that state department servers have been compromised, odds are Clinton’s private server was probably more secure from exposure than a diligent State Dept employee using just work email.

    Finally, the Clinton era is over and the corruption charges are now false. If you have evidence that Hillary Clinton committed any criminal offense, as a private citizen you should contact the FBI. Given Republican control of the Executive, the DOJ, the FBI, the only acceptable explanation for the lack of criminal charges and conviction against Hillary Clinton is that there is no such case there. Perhaps you think because you think ‘intent’ is not in the statute (and I’ll bet money you haven’t actually read the statute) you have uncovered some subtle legal aspect missed by all the lawyers and prosecutors in the Federal Gov’t. Such a stance should be given the respect it is merited.

  2. Mark says:


    “Mens rea” … so you’d give Petraeus the same pass?

    If you have evidence that Hillary Clinton committed any criminal offense, as a private citizen you should contact the FBI.

    I think it pretty clear there was frequent and common pay to play “give to Clinton Foundation” in return for access to Sec/State and her favors. But what benefit would a Trump admin gain going after her?

  3. Boonton@gmail.com says:

    “Mens rea” … so you’d give Petraeus the same pass?

    Sure, he already failed with Russia. It is a crime to knowingly take campaign support from a foreign entity or person. It is established law that campaign support is not only cash contributions but ‘in kind’ contributions. The moment Don Jr. got a message from the Russian lawyer that they had ‘dirt’ they wanted to give the campaign and he said ‘great let’s meet’ it became a crime. Now if you can show me Hillary said something like “I think keeping information secure is stupid, let me put it somewhere where it isn’t” you’d have your mens rae.

    But what benefit would a Trump admin gain going after her?

    1. He would have the benefit of fulfilling his oath to defend the Constitution and laws of the US.

    2. He would have the benefit of keeping his promises during the campaign.

    But you’re not like that type of person anymore, you imagine yourself to be more of a Putin type I guess so let me give you more pragmatic benefits.

    If Trump open a criminal case against Clinton and proved it, it would be a huge demonstrate that he was right about ‘draining the swamp’ and the elites ‘taking care of their own’. Trump today has the resources of the FBI and DOJ. He has access to all level of classified and secret information. If anything like you’ve claimed is true he could secure a conviction…or at the very least dump damaging information that demonstrates there was something to the Clinton corruption claims all along.

    Yet he has not done either. Instead he impotently tweets about Obama ‘bugging’ him as if is but an old man sitting on a toilet angry at the world but powerless to do anything about it.

    Absent this we should revert to first principals. Innocent until charged and proven guilty in a court of law. If the gov’t, despite being lead by someone who claimed to have wanted Hillary ‘locked up’, does not even try to charge that means there is no case. End of story.