(link...)

Intent is irrelevant. It is not part of the law. Comey is wrong. Ask David Petraeus.

It doesn't appear the FBI was able to establish an actual breach. This would mean that the case against HRC is extremely weak, and likely overturned even if a witch hunt proved successful.

Intent is written into the law. The fact that no breaches were allowed shows an intent to comply and a de facto compliance of the statute. This bird won't fly with a competent jury. I can promise you Herb Moncier could get her off the hook.

There is a vast difference between an error in judgement, and intentionally committing a criminal act. The proof of the information being unsecured would be a breach in the system. They didn't find a breach, hence, you have a highly technical argument that will come back to whether or not there was, in fact, a breach. The underlying assumption would have to be that Clinton was incompetent. That argument would be proven false. Regardless of whether or not she was in technical compliance of a regulation, the fact that there is no breach shows her to be within the boundaries of the intent of the law, if not the letter.

Intent is an element of just about every crime. No intent, no crime.

This is EXACTLY the result predicted for months. Can we move on now?

So on June 30, Loretta Lynch meets with Bill Clinton.

On July 1st, Lynch pledges to follow the recommendations of the FBI on prosecution of the email case.

On July 3, "aides close to Mrs. Clinton" suggest she may keep Loretta Lynch on as AG.

And today there's an announcement that there will be no prosecution.

I'm trying to swallow my cynicism.

Even without Bill Clinton's tarmac blunder last week, an FBI conclusion not to recommend charges would have resulted in proclamations that 'the fix is in' anyway.

As with Whitewater and Benghazi, for those who don't like the Clintons, no investigation or finding of fact is believed to be valid, unless it proclaims boldly "they did it!"

As flawed as they may be as human beings, when you consider that quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to investigate potential wrongdoing by the Clintons, with nothing of real consequence to show for it. If that much time and money was spent investigating pretty much anyone (much less any politician), who would come out of it any better?

ask them if intent is required under 18 USC 973, many a good worker, scientist, and lab worker has been lost to this statute without any evidence of intent to remove, duplicate, or copy any of the classified defense department information involved in the situation. Comey's interpretation of the statute creates more questions about the veracity and the integrity of our government than it solves.

ANALYSIS: Sorry, But There Still Isn't Enough to Prosecute Hillary Clinton
(link...)

Breakdowns from Ian Milhiser at ThinkProgress.

Setting aside the bare language of the law, there’s also a very important practical reason why officials in Clinton’s position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd. For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, “’it’s common’ that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information.” “’It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.’ People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.”
Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.

Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept

Comey also detailed that her key public statements defending her conduct – i.e., she never sent classified information over her personal email account and that she had turned over all “work-related” emails to the State Department – were utterly false; insisted “that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation”; and argued that she endangered national security because of the possibility “that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” Comey also noted that others who have done what Clinton did “are often subject to security or administrative sanctions” – such as demotion, career harm, or loss of security clearance.

She would have been better served to get a hand-slap. A fine, rebuke, whatever.

The optics of "nothing" is the worst option for her politically.

From the tarmac, to the FBI meeting, to Comey's announcement to the joint rally appearance with the President - the optics and timing are terrible. Innocent or not.

When your highest negatives center around trust, you try to overcome the issue - not solidify it.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch released the following statement today regarding the State Department email investigation:

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

I'm extremely irritated with Clinton for 1) setting up her own server so she has all control 2) mixing her private and work emails together and 3) not understanding or caring about the repercussions.

It was all stupid and very arrogant. Gawd, this is what irks me about her! Having said that, there were probably all kinds of breaches or wrongdoings by many on those threads of emails who just didn't stop and think. That could be a matter of ignorance, innocence or just plain sloppiness and doesn't show intent. Some of it is just plain age and inexperience with excessive use of email. But being in such a high position, they should know better!

Having said all that, Hillary Clinton is our nominee, and good or bad, she's still much better than Trump, who would be a complete disaster in any kind of security position, Hillary is far from perfect and definitely not my ideal, but I shudder to think what breaches Trump would commit if given the chance. God help us.

Is being expanded right now in the Congressional Oversight Committee.

Comey is not doing well. "Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?" Comey, "to the FBI". Why anyone would risk their career to protect Clinton is puzzling. She can't out run this. With expanded scope, Comey will get sucked in to the cover-up.

I don't know why people keep going on about Comey. Of course she wasn't indicted, of course Comey could only report on serious defects in judgment and attention to duty (Clinton's) in the most searing language possible.

And of course that flew right over everybody's heads, esp in the Republican camp. There was a very good analysis of how Republicans missed a golden opportunity to turn Comey's report into a ready made package of attack ads and talking points against Clinton's fitness to hold the office of president. Instead, Trump whines on Twitter and pundits like Glenn Reynolds write sarcastic columns about the FBI. Jesu, folks, the Clintons are making this easy for you, serving up attack stew right to your table, and you can't even smell it because you're too busy making fun of the server.

It's just another example of how the Clintons always land on their feet. They have always counted on their enemies to underestimate their (Clintons') advantages and miss their (Republicans') opportunities. It's how Hillary can and probably will win. A smarter opponent with craftier advisers would be steaming full speed ahead to the White House after this debacle. If Trump really does win, it won't be because he or the party did anything right.

Comey said today, "there are all kinds of folks watching this at home are being told well lots of other cases were prosecuted and she wasn't. I want them to know that's not true."

Rs continuing to "investigate" (i.e. cry "wah wah" because they didn't get the answer they wanted) may excite the base but it will make independents/undecideds roll their eyes and say "THAT again?"

Okay with me, tho - go ahead and overreach. I sincerely hope they call Hillary in for another 11 hours of testimony so she can hand them their genitals again.

As for House Rs impugning the integrity of James Comey, THAT is not only overreach, it's a big mistake. Comey is well-respected on both sides of the aisle.

USA Today (9:45 pm): State Department reopens Clinton emails probe

The U.S. State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides.

...

(Department spokesman John) Kirby told the Associated Press that former officials can still face “administrative sanctions.” The most serious is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton’s naming of a national security team if she becomes president.

Beyond Clinton, the probe is most likely examining confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, AP reported. Abedin wrote many of the emails that the various investigations have focused on, AP noted. Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton's former policy chief, could be national security adviser.

Hillary Clinton's sloppy, arrogant, cavalier and shockingly ignorant treatment of confidential information deserves a good, honest, impartial, thorough latest GOP investigation into the latest unveiling of the rabbit hole out of which will pop Vince Foster's body with attached a Hillary-written confession to either killing him or driving him to suicide (taster's choice), all of the Whitewater records that prove she was behind the scheme to bilk everyone in the world of everything (and how she almost succeeded!), photographs of her lesbian college affairs (interracial and with men too!), the white papers on her failed attempt to force Muricuh into socialism through healthcare, the dress she gave Monica to wear to get semen on it in order to divorce Bill and marry her interracial lesbian male lover while spitting on the grave of BENGHAZI ambassador Stevens, and getting millions in donations from those who flew the jets on 9/11 also while casually betraying Muricawatsis to foreign interests with Bill because, well, you know, COS. Just because. Or something.

Because, for 25 years, the Clintons have been selling out this country. They have, in fact, sold the USA's nuclear arsenal code to Kim Jong Il simply to find out how he got Trump to praise him. Because they are so desperate, after killing everyone they know, lying about everything they know, selling everything they think they know, they have nothing to do except to ape Trump, who is a pillar of truth, modesty, restraint and everything that is HUGE.

OR Hillary Clinton's sloppy, arrogant, cavalier and shockingly ignorant treatment of confidential information deserves a significant rebuke. Which Director Comey delivered.

It's a sad, pathetic, tiny universe in which Americans live. And they think it's the world.

Good luck to you.

Well said, McNutt.
And Tamara? How long can you go on and on and on and on and on and on? To what end?

(link...)!

In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.