Did FBI director Comey exceed his authority?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/286614-did-fbi-director-comey-exceed-his-authorityBI Director James Comey's statement recommending against prosecuting Hillary Clinton was unusual in several respects. First, it is not generally regarded as the job of the FBI to make judgment calls about whether or not to prosecute. Those judgment calls are supposed to be made by prosecutors. The job of the FBI is to investigate the facts and lay them out as objectively and completely as possible so that prosecutors can exercise their discretion and judgment.
Although technically the attorney general in this case could exercise independent judgment, she is unlikely to do so, having already said she would defer to the FBI's recommendation. So in this instance the FBI found the facts, applied the law and exercised prosecutorial discretion. A strange role for an investigative agency!
Second, it is unusual for an FBI director to express opinions such as the kind that Comey made in his statement. He said that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of sensitive material. That is not a legal concept, but to lay people it could sound very much like "gross negligence," which is one of the statutory criteria for bringing a prosecution.
Normally when a prosecutor declines prosecution, all that is said is that there will be no indictment. It is rare, though not unprecedented, for a prosecutor to then go on to excoriate the object of the investigation. The question should be asked: Is that a proper role for the director of the FBI?
Third, Comey used an unusual verbal formulation in discussing classified information. This is what he said:
"Only a small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."
rest at the link.....
He is saying what caught my attention too. Pundits and some here on DU say Hillary lied when she said none of the emails she sent or received were MARKED classified. Comey makes it seem like there were a few.
If, you read the rest of the article ( I didn't post that part for copyright reasons) Dershowitz agrees with me that it is real fuzzy what Comey meant.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You don't have to be a doctor to know that someone is dead.
You don't have to be a housekeeper to know that the house is dirty.
You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
When he said "no reasonable prosecutor" that is what he meant.
Look, the bottom line is this--a cadre of right wing lunatics went after Clinton. They FAILED to take her out because there was no "there" there.
Comey wasn't trying to be judge, jury and executioner. He was simply pointing out The Obvious. He ventured an opinion, and it was an opinion as evident as "The sky is blue today."
I am not an architect, yet, amazingly, I can tell you that this building is in very poor structural condition....now HOW could I possibly know this? Shouldn't I be an "expert" in order to comment? And of course, some structural engineers will come along and insist that my remarks were somehow "fuzzy" and it's not at all clear what the state of this edifice is...because, unnnh...Benghazi, or something?
