• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Hillary to have been Charged by Top FBI Attorney— Comey talked him out..

L

Lectro

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
8,876
Reaction score
254
I always found it distasteful that McCabe and Comey would change the wording in the report in order to conceal the Mrs Clinton’s brazen behavior.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...llary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was?amp

“For most of the past three years, the FBI has tried to portray its top leadership as united behind ex-Director James Comey's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified information over her insecure, private email server.

Although in the end that may have been the case, we now are learning that Comey's top lawyer, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it "pretty late in the process."

The revelation is contained in testimony Baker gave to House investigators last year. His testimony has not been publicly released, but I was permitted to review a transcript.

During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.



"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law - various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?" Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.

Baker paused to gain his lawyer's permission to respond, and then answered, "Yes."

He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was changed:

"So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them," he said. "And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law)."

Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: "Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end."
 
So he/they studied evidence and debated it and in the end concluded that charging her was not appropriate as they could not prove intent.

Sounds reasonable.
 
"And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law)."

Ok. So he thought initially that there may have been a crime committed. He looked further into it, decided they couldn't establish a case, and dropped it. Thanks for posting.

I think one major thing people who get worked up about HER EMAILS!!! overlook is the fact that the government as a whole is woefully behind on cyber-security and law. Which, in the end, is why it was deemed stupid and reckless of Hillary to do what she did, but not illegal.
 
Last edited:
Here is James Baker’s testimony.He held this opinion until the end.

Pay Attention :

“Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: "My original belief after - well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials - I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn't be charged.

— James Baker, Lead Counsel for the FBI.
 
charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law)
Click to expand...
 
Lectro said:
Here is James Baker’s testimony.He held this opinion until the end.

Pay Attention : Try Reading Connor.

“Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: "My original belief after - well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials - I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn't be charged.

— James Baker, Lead Counsel for the FBI.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't that his job though? To present a case? I'm sure there was A case to be made, but in the end, his boss decided it wasn't a case that would result in a conviction. Some bosses may have handled it differently, which I guess is why Comey is constantly under attack by Republicans, but ultimately it was his decision to make and for better or worse you have to move on. It doesn't have to be a unanimous decision. In fact, I would find it weird if everyone in the FBI agreed that there was nothing worth taking Hillary to trial over.
 
Demonwolverine said:
"And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law)."

Ok. So he thought initially that there may have been a crime committed. He looked further into it, decided they couldn't establish a case, and dropped it. Thanks for posting.

I think one major thing people who get worked up about HER EMAILS!!! overlook is the fact that the government as a whole is woefully behind on cyber-security and law. Which, in the end, is why it was deemed stupid and reckless of Hillary to do what she did, but not illegal.
Click to expand...

Intent to break the law doesn't change the fact that she broke the law.
 
For Pubs..we know some of these characters as the usual suspects.

“His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the Department of Justice, a decision the department's inspector general (IG) later concluded was misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that finding but took the actions he did because he thought "they were in the country's best interest."
 
ImTheCaptain said:
if only Clinton and the FBI still existed and the new administration could take a look at the case again
Click to expand...

Yep.


And if Comey had consulted with the AG, I’m sure Pubs would’ve better accepted the decision.


Uh huh.
 
two years and Republicans are waiting for.............................................................
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Intent to break the law doesn't change the fact that she broke the law.
Click to expand...

Apparently, as the man stated, intent is a large part of it. They've already deemed it negligent, but came up short of criminal negligence. And again, I'd be surprised if there were laws in place that could prosecute her for said negligence, but maybe I'm wrong. And I'm also not saying their shouldn't be laws preventing it.
 
Last edited:
ConnorEl said:
Yep.


And if Comey had consulted with the AG, I’m sure Pubs would’ve better accepted the decision.

Only if Bill Clinton could be there and keep everything on the up and up with talk of grandkids and golf games and such..


Uh huh.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top