I am shocked. Utterly gobsmacked. I so very totally didn’t expect this at all. Yikes. Who could have known? Wow.

In the matter of Hillary Clinton V. Everything She Claimed to be Doing as Secretary of State:

A) Yes, she broke the law. Repeatedly and with a great big heavy law breaky thing.

B) No, we’re not recommending that she be prosecuted, because what, are you stupid? She’s Hillary Clinton! She’d kill us all. She’s, like, Keyser Söze without the mercy and human kindness. Anyway, the AG already kissed Bill’s ring. Weren’t you watching?

C) Also she didn’t mean to. It was just a big misunderstanding.

D) Doesn’t mean you’d better try anything like this, though. You are not Hillary Clinton. Lack of criminal intent would not save you.

E) You may genuflect and leave the room now. And don’t forget to vote.

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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Yes, Comey actually said that. She’s not a peasant, so we’re not gonna bust her. Move along.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to I am shocked. Utterly gobsmacked. I so very totally didn’t expect this at all. Yikes. Who could have known? Wow.

  1. Kentucky says:

    F) At this point, what difference does it make?

  2. Judy says:

    The only question come November is “Exactly, WHO is counting the votes?”

  3. Joel says:

    If you ask questions like that, Hillary comes for you at midnight.

  4. “Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions…”
    Just as I suspected- at no time do courts make responsible decisions when people like you or me face punishment for violating one of the State’s counterfeit rules regarding guns, drugs, keeping our property safe, etc. Because, with us, no context is sufficient to justify our ignoring the arbitrary and insane opinions of those bullies.

  5. MJR says:

    Just another reason not to bother at the ballot box…

  6. Kentucky says:

    ” . . . Hillary comes for you at midnight.”

    That’s terrifying on several levels.

    And I had just gotten over the monster under the bed . . . now it has a face.

  7. jabrwok says:

    Just another reason not to bother at the ballot box…

    I see it as just another reason to hold my nose and vote for Trump. I don’t trust the man, but AFAIK, he’s never committed de facto treason.

  8. Joel says:

    Possibly just for lack of prior opportunity. I can’t believe I’m saying this, because it’s hard to imagine much that’s less attractive than the prospect of a hillary administration, but I’m not at all convinced Trump would be an improvement.

    The depressing thing about this campaign isn’t that the candidates are evil – the candidates are always evil – but that this time there really isn’t any lesser evil.

  9. jabrwok says:

    I’m not at all convinced Trump would be an improvement.

    He may not be, though I don’t see how he could possibly be *worse*, and taking Clinton down a peg or six would be worthwhile on its own.

    Sometimes the Devil you don’t know *is* the better choice. That’s what I’m going to have to keep telling myself anyway:-(.

  10. Robert Evans says:

    This is the Cuckoo’s Nest election, and we have to choose between Randle McMurphy and Nurse Ratched, and the Big Indian has already gone over the wall.

    As for FBI director Comey? Let me paraphrase Thomas More from A Man For All Seasons:

    “Why, James, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the entire world; but for Hillary?”

  11. Judy says:

    LOL Joel, I have no illusions about them coming for me. I doubt I will even be allowed on the train. I’m approaching 65 with chronic health issues and my knees are shot from pounding a concrete factory floor for 40 years; not to mention my hands and wrists.

  12. An angle on this – if you will… I think Trump’s choice of VP is likely to take some of the shine off him unless he finds some cross between Sarah Palin and Condoleeza Rice – maybe Dolly Parton…? His fans may take a hard gulp with some of the names I’ve seen floated – particularly Gingrich!

    If I were a voter I’d almost have to go ‘anything but Hillary’ – but the only reason I even find Trump faintly amusing is in his being the ‘F You’ vote/choice.

    Is there some equivalent to the Maidan in the US – Or is this going to be some kind of BYOB affair at more local capitols?

    Since the Dems all did a sit-in in favor of some tyrannical measure recently – maybe the Reps might nut up and send that crone off to the pillory. I’m sure it’s within their power – just like defunding and dismantling the ACA.

    Oh – btw – Kent – that was a mouthful – but no truer words have been spoken. I can’t think of a judge or a court that hasn’t reeked of what you describe.

  13. billf says:

    My two cents;even if The Donald is no better a choice than Crooked Hillary,to see Bill Clinton in the White House again,and listen to his lyin ass for 4 more years,is enough reason for me to do anything to keep him down.
    Besides,if there is ever a chance to convict Bill or Hill on the money laundering scam that is their Foundation,if Hilary is elected she’ll pardon themselves and they’ll have gotten away with something you and I never will,again.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I would take issue with C. She went to an awful lot of trouble to set up her private, insecure email server. I cannot imagine any scenario in which she was not told multiple times by her aides, staffers, and whatever IT people were involved: “this is against the law.” Go read the statement.

    And “It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014” is utterly damning, in and of itself. Once again I cannot imagine any scenario in which all involved were not willfully, knowingly destroying evidence.

    But, of course, I don’t think anyone was surprised. The distinguishing characteristic of tyranny is, after all, capricious and unequal enforcement of the law. Hillary could go out tomorrow and on a live video feed preside over a Black Mass, sacrifice infants on an altar to Satan, and drink their blood. “At this point, what difference does it make?”

Leave a Reply

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