I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this happened less than a week after her husband tainted the whole process by meeting privately with Lynch for half an hour to talk about "his grandchildren".
Actually, yes. Her interview was already scheduled and everyone expected the thing to wrap up right after that.
One of the problems with our system is that our Justice department is headed by a political appointee. In theory, the FBI does its job without interference from the administration. Even if that Chinese wall was held up absolutely in every case, however, it just looks shifty. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. It would be just as political, probably more so, if we put the DOJ directly under Congress. And there would be a number of conflicts of interest if it were under the judiciary. Had the FBI recommended charges be pressed then the claim would be that Obama scarified Hillary for political reasons. Had it been a Republican president then no charges would equal some sort of quid pro quo or a bargaining chip for the future while charges would have been seen as politically motivated. It's really just a crappy situation no matter the outcome when it comes to the DOJ investigating an administration.
The FBI head is appointed for 10 years, which tends to take him out of the political loop (unlike, as you point out, the head of the Justice Dept.). Instead of trying to protect against some unseen bias, it would be better to examine the facts and see that straight-forward conclusions are usually available. Also, most people take their sword oaths of office pretty seriously. That's why the President often has to resort to pardoning his buddies on the way out. (Or have his replacement do it for him, in the case of Nixon.)
The FBI investigation into Clinton's emails wasn't rigged FYI, Opinion piece FBI Investigation Into Clinton Emails Wasn't Rigged | US News Opinion
It's true. But my point is that it is difficult to maintain that image of political impartiality when the FBI falls under the DOJ. Though you are correct. Obama doesn't need a vast conspiracy to exonerate Hillary. He can simply make legal woes disappear with a stroke of the pen. I don't believe Hillary was deserving of criminal charges. Benghazi was tragic but it wasn't because of Hillary.
There are people quite desperate for her to have legal trouble, so they see conspiracies when it does not occur. Or they evoke other cases, which inevitably involve materially different circumstances. I feel she's her own worst enemy, feeding into all of this. But that will be weighed in the upcoming election, not in a criminal court.
Steve was referring to this; Attorney general wishes she hadn't met with Bill Clinton | U.S. ELECTIONS
Private email servers for cabinet secretaries is evidently permitted. It has been widely reported that Hillary didn't just cook up the idea on her own. Most of her predecessors, under both democratic and republican administrations, maintained their email on a private server. For a service member to download classified material onto a personal device that is a well known unacceptable practice. The issue isn't that Hillary had a private email server it is how she managed the classified material on that private email server. And this also isn't a party specific sort of controversy. Remember that Karl Rove got into hot water after deleting a whole bunch of potentially incriminating emails from George Bush's private email server. I'd bet that if we really knew the content of every email there we'd find a breach of security protocol as well. Personally, I think government employees should on,y use government email for government business. And I think that information should be available through FOIA. There are non-email electronic methods of communication that are encrypted for use in classified message traffic. But until it becomes illegal to basically conduct business on your GoDaddy account this sort of thing will come up. And proving criminal activity will be more difficult.
As Greg Gutfeld said, this could be the worst possible outcome for the Democrat Party. Now they're stuck with Hillary for the general election, while James Comey served up a cornucopia of soundbites that Trump can use in the general election campaign. If the FBI had recommended criminal charges, the Dems could have dumped Hillary and drafted Biden, who's infinitely more likeable (although I view him as the crazy uncle who comes over for holidays that makes everyone laugh, but you're glad to see him leave at the end).
I'm not a fan of Clinton the candidate, but I don't know of any real groundswell about wanting her off the ticket at this point. Yes, Comey said some rough things and yes, the GOP should and will use them. But I doubt seriously it will matter. That ship has sailed, and the Indictment Express didn't arrive. Personally, I believe that if she was indicted and had to drop her bid, it would have improved Trump's chances dramatically. Do the thought exercise. Is that the outcome the GOP and Trump (two different entities) wanted? I bet it was. Is that the outcome the Democrats and Clinton (one entity) wanted? Hardly. Clinton needs to be held accountable by her opposition--she is--and by the press--not quite yet--for her sloppy handling of both the e-mail server (including its contents) and her lack of post facto candor. But Trump is doing his very best (worst!) to undermine even that, so I suspect she'll just let it blow over. And it will.
Which is a very sad assessment of the current state of politics in the United States. The FBI Director all but came out and directly said that he wasn't recommending prosecution because it was Hillary Clinton. Anyone of the rest of the proletariat would be indicted, and likely serve time. Yet, the mainstream media still wonders why distrust of government is at an all-time high.
The thing is, though, that the rest of the proletariat wouldn't be getting classified emails sent to them in the first place. It's the reason why all of the supposedly comparable cases of lower ranking people getting nailed to the wall aren't really comparable. Mismanaging emails I am supposed to receive is different from taking information I was never entitled to view. If I, as an enlisted sailor, took a stack of classified documents home then I was knowingly committing a crime. I knew then as now that I wasn't supposed to take classified documents home. By allowing cabinet secretaries and presidents to maintain private email servers you're telling them that they are allowed to take that stuff home. So the line between sloppy handling and criminal mismanagement is going to be blurrier. Think of it like this... My boss has a company car he is allowed to take home and use for personal business. Our security guard has a company car that he is not allowed to take home for personal use. If my boss let his teenage daughter drive the car and she wrecks it, well, that was a mistake on his part. He shouldn't have let his teenage daughter drive the car. If the security guard took his car home and let his teenage daughter drive it then more rules were broken. More lines were crossed. The former can easily be chalked up to an impulse decision that shouldn't have been made while the latter comes off a bit more premeditated. Is it a double standard? Of course it is. But the wrecked car or the mismanaged email is a consequence of the privilege. Don't let the president have a private email account just like you won't let the low level government employee have one (for government business) and you can hold them to the same standard. Otherwise you can't.
Boy, I sure like how you sum things up Neuhaus! And no, I am not trying to butter you up for anything. :smile:
