I just spoke on the BBC where the anchor was pursuing the question of “whether the FBI broke the law” by informing Congress of the reopening of the investigation into the emails. The allegation came from Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid on Sunday. However, with all due respect to our esteemed GW graduate (and I really do respect Sen. Reid), his allegation is in my view wildly misplaced. Reid is arguing that the actions of FBI Director James B. Comey violates the Hatch Act. I cannot see a plausible, let alone compelling, basis for such a charge against Comey.
In his letter to Comey, Reid raised the the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan politicking by government employees.
5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1) prohibits a government employee from “us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”
Reid argued:
“Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”
The reference to “months” is curious. Comey has kept Congress informed in compliance with oversight functions of the congressional committees but has been circumspect in the extent of such disclosures. It is troubling to see Democrats (who historically favor both transparency and checks on executive powers) argue against such disclosure and cooperation with oversight committees. More importantly, the Hatch Act is simply a dog that will not hunt.
Richard W. Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House from 2005 to 2007, has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Comey with the federal Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. He argues that “We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway.”
However, Comey was between the horns of a dilemma. He could be accused of acts of commission in making the disclosure or omission in withholding the disclosure in an election year. Quite frankly, I found Painter’s justification for his filing remarkably speculative. He admits that he has no evidence to suggest that Comey wants to influence the election or favors either candidate. Intent is key under the Hatch investigations. You can disagree with the timing of Comey’s disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view.
Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using “[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight.
Such violations under the Hatch Act, even if proven, are not criminal matters. The Office of Special Counsel -can investigate such matters and seek discipline — a matter than can ultimately go before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
That does not mean that there is not a policy against statements or actions influencing elections. Comey issued a memo in March 2016 reminding that employees “should be particularly mindful of these rules in an election year,” and defining prohibited political activity to include all “activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”
Reminder: Donald Trump due in court after Election Day on child rape and racketeering charges
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/reminder-donald-trump-due-in-court-after-election-day-on-child-rape-and-racketeering-charges/
edm…..the New Jersey patent attorney handling the plantiff’s case learned that she was seeking a lawyer by reading about it in the GossipExtra website.
I don’t have much confidence in “legal referral services”, but I’m not convinced that the “GossipExtra referral service” is superior.
Trump has so many court dates and investigations going on it makes one’s head spin.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html “FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI’s name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former bureau official tells CNBC.” Guess Reid was right.
I was curious about the timing of all this information. Here is a pretty good analysis that I posted earlier, now on the Hedge.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/clinton-collapse-only-deep-state-so-precise
Hatch Act Question if a gov employee interferes with an election he/she violates the Hatch Act.
How about Obama who has spent many days pushing for Hillary, but Friday cancelled his next tour?
HJL – they have charge Sheriff Joe with criminal contempt. That would be a Hatch Act violation.
Prez is not under Hatch Act. He is an elected official.
In order for Mrs. Clinton to be guilty of a criminal offense in regard to the email matter, proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, must exist that she intended to commit a crime. As Comey previously admitted, regardless of how negligent her use of the private server was: 1. there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton INTENDED to commit a crime; there never will be any such evidence; and 2. there is no evidence that the alleged mishandling of the emails resulted in anything adverse to the interests of the United States. That’s it. The rest of the flap and posturing is nothing more than partisan politics intended to divert attention from the extent to which Trump is totally unfit to be President because he is a fat, bloated, egomaniacal, racist, misogynist who doesn’t even understand basic civics.
The Republicans will not let this go because it’s all they have. They hound, they pound, they demand, and their so-called “oversight” committee is a pure waste of taxpayer money, calculated for nothing other than political posturing. Their fat, orange loser of a presidential candidate insists that this “scandal” is bigger than Watergate. What scandal? Where is the proof that an intentional crime was committed? Comey’s release of a statement regarding these emails, at this point prior to the election, is fully politically motivated and a clear violation of the Hatch Act. He claims to not even know whether these emails were duplicates of those already reviewed, or anything else about them, so why say anything at all? There is no reason other than political, and to give the Republican’s fat, orange candidate something else to pontificate about. Discussing evidence under review is completely unprecedented for the FBI. Voters should be outraged about this blatant attempt to divert attention away from the real issues. Voters should also be outraged that the fatass orange one is being assisted by the Russian government to try to steal the American Presidency. Since when is hacking of emails OK?
Natacha Rambova – actually intent is not part of the statute that Hillary will be charged with. She either did it or she didn’t do it. And, as we all know, she did it.
Did you read Comey’s reasons why no charges were brought? Lack of intent is the reason.
Natacha Rambova – intent is not an element of the crime. Comey was wrong on several points causing a revolution in his field agents. Some people think this letter is a paen to his agent to calm the waters.
Since when is someone guilty of a crime without there being any element of intent? Intent is a necessary element of any crime. Ask Professor Turley. Mrs. Clinton will never be charged no matter how much the Republicans waste time and taxpayer money hounding and pounding. You need to stop listening to Rush, Kellyanne, and Hannity. They don’t know what they’re talking about.
Natacha, Intent is not required in, say, speeding. I did not mean to go so fast is not a defense.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” — Legal Maxim
That is factually incorrect. You fail to distinguish federal statute from state criminal law, largely evolved from English common law, in which an element of mens rea is presumed. There is no such presumption in federal statute – it actually must be stated in the actual statute. Comey laid out clear evidence that Clinton violated two statutes that don’t require intent. He then stated that any reasonable prosecutor would decide not to prosecute based on his discretion. That last was an opinion, apparently not shared universally.
Verbal contortionists
can be fun to watch.
That was the silver lining, the entertainment factor, in Comey’s July performances on the “gross negligence”/”extreme carelessnessdistinction” he tried to draw.
tnash – Comey drew a distinction without a difference.
Paul Schulte
That was one problem with Comey’s July presentations.
The other problem he created for himself was the “no reasonable prisecutir” remark.
He could have said “in my opinion, this case does not warrant prosecition”
In going overboard the way he did with the “no reasonabke prosecutor” comment, he invited a lot of blowback.
Sorry about the misspellings…the damn “i” and “o” accidentally get interchanged on this smartphone, and I can’t proofread till I post.
tnash – several AUSAs said they would be willing to prosecute the case.
Natacha – try running a stop sign. You can either intend to do it or you can miss the sign and just blow right by it. The crime is the same.
Yeah, Paul, but maybe a charge of “reckless” driving, or “negligent” driving, would be dismissed if one explained to the judge that it was merely “extreme carelessness”, not “negligent or reckless”.
tnash – my mantra from now on is “Treat me like Hillary!”
Paul
Wrong as you so often are. Intent is the major element in determining the seriousness of a malfeasance. Every President has been ignorant and negligent. Some, such as Nixon and Reagan have intentionally committed the most heinous crimes but only Nixon got caught. Reagan knew how to isolate himself. Clinton didn’t intentionally place the nation’s security at risk; she negligently did so. Placed next to the preceding Secretaries of State and Presidents, she is par for the course. Or did you just come from a Trump rally.
issac – I know getting adjusted to a new country can be troubling. However, in the United States we have some crimes that require intent and some that don’t. This is one that does not require intent. Read the statute. You won’t be able to understand it, but read it anyway.
Natacha, Did you read the law? Intent is not required regardless of what Comey said.
My understanding is that “gross negligence” in mishandling classified material is a crime.
“Intent” is not a requirement where there is gross negligence.
Comey went out of his way not to accuse Sec. Clinton
of “gross negligence”, and instead he labeled
her as “extremely careless” the way she handled classified material.
I did not hear a clear explanation from Comey as to how he made the distinction between the two.
Since when is “extreme carelessness” in handling classified material OK?
Since July?
In any case, thanks for rewriting and explaining the law.
Huh???? 1.[…]there never will be any such evidence; and 2. there is no evidence that the alleged mishandling of the emails resulted in anything adverse to the interests of the United States.
How do you know there never will be any evidence? Because Comey was properly paid to make sure there would never be any evidence? Because Hillary had her personal email server “bleached” in a patently obvious attempt to avoid the FOIA? You are presenting one disaster after another as evidence of innocence?
And as to evidence of whether or not her server was hacked – seriously??? – the Server has been scrubbed so that proves it wasn’t hacked??? Only Hillary (no, Trump would do it too) would be brazen enough to use such ridiculous ill-logic and regally demand everyone swallow it.
The people I have spoken to (it’s their business) assure me it is almost axiomatic that those server(s) were hacked. You can’t imagine the hoops one has to jump through to prevent a highly targeted system from patient persistent attacks when the attackers are powerful nation states with deep pockets such as Russia or China which is exactly what a private server belonging to the Secretary of State would encounter and such attacks from those players are, like those of the FBI or NSA, 100% successful given enough time (months – and they had years). Why do you think the FBI agents are so pissed? It’s a foregone conclusion and it comes about simply because her highness didn’t want to operate by the same rules as everyone else.
Now if, on the other hand, you mean that Hillary is innocent and will never be anything but innocent because she will never suffer a days inconvenience for her crimes, never mind the slammer, then i take back what I said above. The idea that being beyond or above consequence for one’s actions is equal to innocence would be a very shrewd observation and one that Hillary Clinton absolutely subscribes to, at least so far as she is concerned.
“Because Hillary had her personal email server “bleached” in a patently obvious attempt to avoid the FOIA?”
Sounds like intent to me. So does setting up a private server and only being outed about its presence by a hacker.
The interesting aspect of all this is that Weiner, Bill Clinton, and Trump are birds of a feather, all three are sexual predators who let their libidos get the better of them. Clinton got hummers from his interns but Trump went around with his tongue dragging on the floor, buying beauty contests so he could barge into the girl’s dressing room, groped women in public, etc, and Weiner somehow needs to send photos of his d*ck to girls and lately a 15 year old girl. It really is the least of all the evils. Bill is disgusting but is the least disgusting and he did a good job as President and knows the system. Trump’s main claim to fame is riding his daddy’s real estate business to further riches, while failing at almost all of his non real estate adventures, declaring bankruptcy in a third of his businesses, stiffing the very hard working contractors he is wooing, and focusing on his hair and his name as a brand. Weiner really is nothing at all, but a cheap fast talker.
It really and unfortunately comes down to the least of all evils but between Trump and Clinton, more ability with Clinton. Trump had the country handed to him and he has blown it non stop since the beginning of the primaries. Clinton has weathered the storm and will hopefully weather this latest storm. Trump has done nothing and said nothing except hate Clinton.
It goes without saying that the US system is dysfunctional and is so far from a democracy to be laughable but for the moment there is no way any sane person would want to see an idiot like Trump in the White House. Hate Clinton all you want. But, don’t put the idiot Trump in the White House.
issac – Bill Clinton has supposedly been to bed with 4000 women. Plus, he has made many trips on the ‘Lolita Express.’ He raped at least 2 women (who have come forward).
As for Trump and the beauty contests, men walk in and out of the dressing rooms all the time. It is no big deal. It is surprising all these came up as an ‘October Surprise.’
Not sure what to say about Weiner since he has not gone to trial and is probably trying to make a deal with the DoJ.
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump both went to “Lolita Express” but only one of them is accused of raping someone there and that is Donald trump. He has a court date in December.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/294361/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-teen-girl-rape/ I prefer the woman with the email problem to the rapist. What awful choices……….
Kellyanne refuse to answer the question about the rape case this morning on CNBC.
Kate – Trump has a status hearing in December. Assuming it goes to trial, it will be awhile.
Bleh! a president in a rape trial.
Kate…
Clinton was never brought to trial on the rape allegation.
Is that the scenario you were referring to?
Paul
Looks like you read Fox News and/or the Washington Times exclusively. Clinton is a horn dog but there is no proof that he groped or raped anyone. He has an over charged libido, something that most men have and when you add the ego that it takes to be a Rhodes Scholar, Governor, President it gets a real work out. Clinton would fit in in most countries where the puritanical viewpoints regarding women are not so prevalent as in the US. Clinton is admired in France.
Trump may or may not have an over charged libido but he does have enough women, some proven and some not-yet, accusing him of violating their private space that he is a predator. You should read a more rounded set of news papers. Thus far Trump loves women but where he loves them. Trump is a male chauvinist. But, more importantly he doesn’t recognize that there is anything wrong with his behavior. This makes him a special sort of sociopath. Add the orange hair and there is more than an inkling of some deep mental problems. Reagan was one thing with the hair dye into his seventies. Trump looks like the fool he is. Trump should be in Vegas opening for Cher, one peacock following another.
Weiner is nothing but an embarrassment. He is a slick talking politician who knows how to chow down on bagels, pizza, Chinese food, hot dogs, etc. He definitely has a problem.
issac – I read the NYPost. If Trump had groped anyone it would have been on Page Six.
@Issac it strikes me some where along the line you mentioned you have a connection to Canada? If you are a Canadian please take care of your own house, especially the healthcare system. If your not a Canadian I’ll vote for the successful real estate guy vs the liar who has placed the nation at risk for a buck.
Wendel
I have dual nationality. However, I reside in the US and not Canada. Therefore it is presently not my house. Canada’s house is eons ahead of that of the US as regards democracy and common sense. There are several political parties to represent the diverse opinions of Canadians and those opinions are not the result of the carnival found here in the US, but intelligent well informed opinions. The US is dead last amongst its peers when it comes to democracy. It is an oligarchy with two choices, one more than a dictator.
As long as we’re on the topic of ignorance, there is no such thing as a ‘Canadian Health Care System’. There is a ‘Canadian Health Care Act’ which oversees the Provincial systems. Each province administers its own system. There is a public base care system paid through a tax like system and a private system, both available to everyone, one mandatory and one optional. Recently, under the previous conservative hard line government, the health care systems experienced a lessening of facilities, stemming from less funding. The present liberal government is working to expand funding but results will typically be not seen for some time. In any and all respects the systems in Canada are far more preferable than those found in the US, except of course for those who can pay the cost of the most expensive services.
As far as Trump being a successful real estate guy and Clinton being a liar, Trump lies a dozen+ times more than Clinton. With Trump we expect it. Lying has become one of his endearing traits, for some. For those with a brain in their heads, he is simply a pathological liar. At least when Clinton lies you can see it in her face. With Trump he doesn’t even know he is lying. Yeah, give him the Presidency. You must be either joking or so frustrated you can’t see straight.
Sure Isaac, Trudeau is a real leader. I always enjoy the photo ops when he is featured with Obama. Trudeau looks like a love sick puppy. The corporations own Canada as much as they do the US even though they have more parties.
Autumn
If you ever get the chance to experience an election in Canada, Great Britain, or France and listen to the voters and their comments you would be ashamed of the US. But there’s the rub. Few in America have any idea what a real democracy is and how to go about electing representatives. The xenophobic aspects of the US are a given. People have become acclimated to the side show and have no idea of anything else. It’s not about what someone looks like. It’s about what is between the ears. American voters are dumbed down by the system. No other country would allow this circus. The proof is happening as we comment. Two choices, one more than a dictatorship and each presented by private funds. The founding fathers would puke their guts out. Now take a swipe at another country if it makes you feel better.
Bill is disgusting but is the least disgusting and he did a good job as President and knows the system.
Oh yea, great job!!! NAFTA, Enlarged and helped privitize the prison system to house more blacks for smoking tea, Repeal of Glass-Steagall thus ensuring the melt down of 2008, the Bosnian War:
.
A real whopper of a pres.(if you happen to own your own block of Wall St. or of the MIC).
The one thing I would agree with from above is that Bill indeed knows the system as his corrupt foundation attests.
Opps, forgot to link the quote: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Yugoslavia/BillClintonsWar_Yugo.html
Yeah, seems the demos have forgotten about the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I don’t know why these people think holding onto her skirt is going to save them from a $hit storm. I remember the joke from when Clinton was winding down his last term,
“What’s the difference between Bill Clinton and a Republican?”
“You tell me.”
Not a joke Slohrss – Clinton was the first Republican running as a Democrat elected. The next was Obama and now we have HRC.
I don’t know what the impetus was for Mr. Comey to come forth with this latest information, but once the Clinton corruption syndicate begins to fracture it will likely quickly become cataclysmic in scope, taking many, many “important” people down.
The democrats must stop protecting the tail of the Clinton Syndicate because once that tail is snapped, it will explosively disintegrate like every other Prince Rupert’s Drop. Unfortunately, there are too many democrat politicians either in a complete state of denial or they are just as involved in the political sleaze.
Everyone of you who are Americans on this blog should be enraged with the way we all are duped by the political aristocracy of our country. If half of what Wiki has exposed is true whether from the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans or Martians you should want everyone connected indicted.
How any of you in good conscience can defend this woman with everything her and husband have been accused of over the years amazes me. She screwed and her henchman screwed Bernie because the young crowd saw through her. The weak defenses are a amazing: Bush, Russians, Donald Trump.
Anyone who ever sent or received an e-mail from her would have known they were not coming from a secure line, that includes the President, the DOJ and FBI. If it was listed as Clinton.com and not .gov someone should have stepped right up and shut her A#* down.
Comedy f’d up his men know it, the retired guys from his agency know it, the majority of Americans know it and so should you. Harry Reid lies like a rug, before Comey was a darling now because he is trying to right his wrong, well he’s no good. where are all these good American democrats saying “with all that’s out there I cannot support her”?