Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[sunmaster14]

Please don't.

That's just absurd.

Comey claimed that he would not prosecute the statute as written (i.e. without the mens rea threshold) because it was constitutionally suspect. That is not his job to decide. That is a job for the courts. Also, it's not constitutionally suspect. There are many federal laws on the books which don't require intent in order to be in violation of them and subject to criminal penalties.

Given his absurd justification, I now think that he is not competent.

 

[pgwenthold]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

Accusing the FBI director of being incompetent? Seriously?

Come on, Clinton-haters, it's time to step up and put an end to this nonsense. If all you got is to smear the FBI director, then the gig is up. And if you let it go on, you spiral down more.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Did Comey give any reason as to why this wasn't prosecutable? (I can't watch the hearing)

Anyone with an actual quote from the transcript?

 

[The Big Dog]

16.5 cited a case that you can easily look up. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of trusting the omniscient James Comey? He's not infallible you know. Or even all that competent as far as I can tell.

I get it, people's competence are directly tied to whether you agree with them.

That is critical thinking.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

Because that is critical thinking.

 

[sunmaster14]

Let me make two points here that are worthwhile:

1) You're implying I didn't read the case, or that I haven't heard it before.

Correct. Am I right?

2) Yours and 16.5's credibility, in my eyes, has gone so far down the drain that I'm reaching my limit of following bread crumbs.

I guess the answer is "yes." Why are you wasting time getting all offended that I inferred you hadn't yet looked up the case before dismissing it, if indeed you hadn't looked it up before dismissing it?

For the record, I've tried looking up the case on google and haven't been able to find the briefs. I'm on vacation, so don't have access to my normal legal search tools.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, because she gave it to her lawyers to comply with State and there was thus no criminal intent.

The law doesn't require "criminal intent" in order to be a crime. She intended to give it to her lawyers, who were not authorized to have it.

 

[Tony Stark]

Comey claimed that he would not prosecute the statute as written (i.e. without the mens rea threshold) because it was constitutionally suspect. That is not his job to decide. That is a job for the courts. Also, it's not constitutionally suspect. There are many federal laws on the books which don't require intent in order to be in violation of them and subject to criminal penalties.

Given his absurd justification, I now think that he is not competent.

I guess the entire team that investigated the case (according to Comey experienced people that Americans would want on such a high profile case) is incompetent since they unanimously agreed Hillary shouldn't face charges.

I hope Republicans claim that the FBI is incompetent (or corrupt) because they didn't do what Republicans badly wanted them to. Sure to win over voters.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

16.5 cited a case that you can easily look up. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of trusting the omniscient James Comey? He's not infallible you know. Or even all that competent as far as I can tell.

I need to come back to this ... Isn't the whole point of having congressional hearings and confirmations of appointments so that we know we can trust people like James Comey?

Isn't that why we appoint them to be in charge - because we trust their judgement and to act correctly ?

Don't we appoint the head of the FBI for a term of 10 years to help avoid any real or perceived political interference ?

Doesn't Comey have a track record, a history we can look at to determine if he is competent, if has integrity ? (the John Ashcroft hospital event comes to mind...)

Didn't Comey say it was a unanimous decision among his team, not just his decision alone.

Haven't they been working on this case for almost a year ?

Do you think maybe with his career history as a prosecutor he has some familiarity with the case you cited ?

But after all that , you think it's appropriate to defer to a poster on the Internet, and that you can question Comeys competence ???

I can't even........

 

[Tony Stark]

The law doesn't require "criminal intent" in order to be a crime. She intended to give it to her lawyers, who were not authorized to have it.

So do you know more about federal criminal law than Comey does? And the agents/prosecutors that unanimously agreed that there should be no charges?

Or are they all corrupt liars?

It has to be one of the two. I'm guessing you're going with the latter. Pathetic.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't know if all of these questions were asked, but they're good ones. The first one makes Comey's claim that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute here look kind of ridiculous (and, yes, incompetent).

You said that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought a case against Sec. Clinton on the facts you found. But four well-regarded former federal prosecutors -- Attorney General and Judge Michael Mukasey; former Deputy Attorney General Rudy Giuliani; former Division Chief Andy McCarthy of the USAO for the Southern District of New York; and former Appellate Chief for the Eastern District of Virginia (now Georgetown Law Professor) William Otis have all said that a prosecution could have been brought and probably would have succeeded. Do you think these are all unreasonable judgments?

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't know if all of these questions were asked, but they're good ones. The first one makes Comey's claim that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute here look kind of ridiculous (and, yes, incompetent).

How do you know they aren't grandstanding? Maybe they would not actually prosecute if they were in a position to do so.

 

[The Big Dog]

ETA: I googled the case citation above, and this thread was hit number 4 on google. Seems some people are really fishing at the bottom of the barrel here. If I can find the case, I'll take bets that there will be something about that case that makes it utterly and completely unlike the Clinton situation.

How exactly does the fact that this thread is 4 on google enter into the situation?

The case I cited specifically affirmed a conviction for gross negligence under §793(f) cited above. Therefore, as a matter of law, this case shows that intent is not an element of the statute (which is obvious by its plain language in any event).

Oh I agree! This case is unlike Hillary's case, the Sergeant got indicted and convicted.

 

[plague311]

Correct. Am I right?

No, you're not right.

I guess the answer is "yes." Why are you wasting time getting all offended that I inferred you hadn't yet looked up the case before dismissing it, if indeed you hadn't looked it up before dismissing it?

For the record, I've tried looking up the case on google and haven't been able to find the briefs. I'm on vacation, so don't have access to my normal legal search tools.

You guessed wrong. Just because I said I was nearing my end doesn't mean that I didn't read it. Perhaps your knack for thinking your opinions are fact might be an issue here.

You have a weird way to spend your vacation. I didn't even know this forum existed when I was on my vacation.

 

[Tony Stark]

How exactly does the fact that this thread is 4 on google enter into the situation?

The case I cited specifically affirmed a conviction for gross negligence under §793(f) cited above. Therefore, as a matter of law, this case shows that intent is not an element of the statute (which is obvious by its plain language in any event).

Oh I agree! This case is unlike Hillary's case, the Sergeant got indicted and convicted.

Do you think that Comey is a corrupt liar in Hillary's pocket? And the team that unanimously agreed that there should be no charges?

Are you going to avoid answering? I'm guessing yes.

Pathetic.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't know if all of these questions were asked, but they're good ones. The first one makes Comey's claim that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute here look kind of ridiculous (and, yes, incompetent).

You said that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought a case against Sec. Clinton on the facts you found. But four well-regarded former federal prosecutors -- Attorney General and Judge Michael Mukasey; former Deputy Attorney General Rudy Giuliani; former Division Chief Andy McCarthy of the USAO for the Southern District of New York; and former Appellate Chief for the Eastern District of Virginia (now Georgetown Law Professor) William Otis have all said that a prosecution could have been brought and probably would have succeeded. Do you think these are all unreasonable judgments?

For prosecutors that haven't actually spent a year looking at the actual evidence ? Haven't seen it at all...

Of course it's unreasonable. It's un-reasoned and un-informed.

 

[plague311]

For prosecutors that haven't actually spent a year looking at the actual evidence ? Haven't seen it at all...

Of course it's unreasonable. It's un-reasoned and un-informed.

You say that but random attorney\lawyer are obviously way more knowledgeable than the director of the FBI

 

[sunmaster14]

For prosecutors that haven't actually spent a year looking at the actual evidence ?

Of course it's unreasonable. It's un-reasoned and un-informed.

Comey's conclusion was that there was extreme carelessness, but no criminal intent. He decided not to prosecute because he didn't feel that extreme carelessness was enough. He made a judgment based on a reading of the law that everybody else can read and interpret for themselves. In the case of actual and former prosecutors, their interpretation is informed by precedent and legal experience. You don't need the specific facts to reach conclusions solely of law. Whether or not extreme carelessness (Comey's words, by the way) amounts to criminal negligence sounds like something for a jury to decide. A prosecutor might think a jury wouldn't decide in favor of criminal negligence, but based on Comey's description I don't see how it would be unreasonable for a prosecutor to think otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

So do you know more about federal criminal law than Comey does?

You can't argue the merits of the case, only appeal to authority.

 

[Tony Stark]

You say that but random attorney\lawyer are obviously way more knowledgeable than the director of the FBI

Note that Comey is a former federal prosecutor himself. I think he said in his testimony that he spent 15 years as a prosecutor, working his way up to US Attorney and then Deputy Attorney General (and now FBI Director). He must have been an incompetent one though because he doesn't agree with sufferers of HDS.

 

[Tony Stark]

You can't argue the merits of the case, only appeal to authority.

They are legit experts while you are just a random sufferer of HDS. Gee, who should I believe, them or you.

It is no surprise that you are afraid to say whether you think you know more about the law than Comey (and the team of agents/prosecutors that unanimously agreed should be no charges) or if you think he (and they) are corrupt liars.

It has to be one of the two and either makea you look really bad.

Truly pathetic.