Fox News legal expert sees “no viable case” against James Comey

[Nostra]

Please include the redacted portions.

"While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice," Horowitz wrote

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said

"Intent" is not required, moron.

 

[postman]

You are a liar.


Politics

Hillary Clinton had emails on server more classified than top secret​

By
Nancy Cordes,
Rebecca Kaplan
Updated on: January 20, 2016 / 7:06 AM EST / CBS News

Hillary Clinton's private email server contained information that was classified at a higher level than "top secret," the inspector general of the intelligence community told members of Congress in a letter obtained by CBS News.

The server Clinton used as secretary of state contained "several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community] element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels," the inspector general, Charles McCullough, wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News. "SAP" stands for special access programs, which carry a classification level higher than top secret.

Hillary Clinton had emails on server more classified than top secret

The inspector general for the intelligence community recently updated Congress on the contents of the former secretary of state's home server

www.cbsnews.com

The operative words are determined by the [intelligence community]

That was a retroactive determination based on the content. Not based on any markings on the e-mails.

 

[postman]

"Intent" is not required, moron.

For a felony, it's required. Read the USSC decision on charging that statute.

 

[struth]

Please include the redacted portions.

"While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice," Horowitz wrote

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said

Sure, I am well aware he was protecting her and ignoring the law and procedures of the fbi and DOJ

That’s been the topic

 

[struth]

For a felony, it's required. Read the USSC decision on charging that statute.

Wrong. Not every felony requires a specific intent

In fact a gross negligence is all that’s required, see subsection (f)

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

It would really help you dembots with the American people if you stopped lying so much, especially about the Clinton matter still. It’s just sad and makes you all truly look like a cult

 

[postman]

Sure, I am well aware he was protecting her and ignoring the law and procedures of the fbi and DOJ

That’s been the topic

Your citations only go so far as Comey didn't follow DOJ "norms".
Just like Trump is doing by asking the DOJ to investigate his political rivals.

 

[postman]

Wrong. Not every felony requires a specific intent

In fact a gross negligence is all that’s required, see subsection (f)

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

It would really help you dembots with the American people if you stopped lying so much, especially about the Clinton matter still. It’s just sad and makes you all truly look like a cult

That's not the statute they proposed charging Clinton under.

So your example means SQUAT !!!!

As I said, read the USSC decision on the requirements of the statute they wanted to charge Clinton under.

 

[struth]

Your citations only go so far as Comey didn't follow DOJ "norms".
Just like Trump is doing by asking the DOJ to investigate his political rivals.

There is nothing abnormal about the president enforcing federal law, he is the executive

 

[struth]

That's not the statute they proposed charging Clinton under.

So your example means SQUAT !!!!

As I said, read the USSC decision on the requirements of the statute they wanted to charge Clinton under.

Of course they could have. They didn’t, but of course they could have

 

[Rambunctious]

As long as Comey the clown feels a little of what he caused Trump to feel makes me smile.... run his ass through the wringer....

 

[BrokeLoser]

This explains why my fellow conservatives here have no answer when I ask them what James Comey lied about. Even Fox News says there’s no proof James Comey lied.

"[The indictment] seems to be premised on something that's not true, which is that [former Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to The Wall Street Journal and told Comey about it after the fact," McCarthy explained.

“"So it's true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of okaying it before it happened," the legal expert expanded. "So I don't see how they can make that case."

Legal expert sees no viable case against James Comey after Trump DOJ indictment

The indictment against former FBI Director James Comey "seems to be premised on something that's not true," Fox News contributor and legal analyst Andrew McCarthy cautions.

www.foxbusiness.com

Isn’t Andrew McCarthy Patrick Fitzgerald’s (Comey’s attorney) best bud?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

This explains why my fellow conservatives here have no answer when I ask them what James Comey lied about. Even Fox News says there’s no proof James Comey lied.

TRANSLATION: "Just ask the question not in question as though it were the problem, then make up a story about how it puzzles folks, using this premise as an example:"

"[The indictment] seems to be premised on something that's not true, which is that [former Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to The Wall Street Journal and told Comey about it after the fact," McCarthy explained.

“"So it's true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of okaying it before it happened," the legal expert expanded. "So I don't see how they can make that case."

TRANSLATION: "Nixon had no knowledge of watergate before the fact, but he was being accused of knowing about it after the fact [ by the media] then going after him for covering it up which gave us the question comey is not being asked by the media...'what did he [the 'president'/and now comey] know and when did he know it?...
... by not asking that question white liberals can pretend the case cannot be made for any charge they want to invent, listen to a 'conservative from Ga.' folks, the claim and question are bogus, don't be fooled...btw, "legal expert" = "deep throat" [a mythical source played by the part of an ex-FBI agent who got 15 minutes of fame for pretending there was such a source.]...Hope this clears it up as we conservatives still have a lot of good work to do to set things right."

 

[berg80]

TRANSLATION: "Nixon had no knowledge of watergate before the fact

By Watergate do you mean the break in itself or the illegal stuff that followed?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

By Watergate do you mean the break in itself or the illegal stuff that followed?

TRANSLATION: "I have no clue what 'before the fact' means so help me out here"
not a problem, I'll try to keep it short for ya... nixon had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE BREAK IN ITSELF. you can stop there if you need to or...
once he could not be connected to it they had to switch gears and take it in a new direction with the catch phrase "what did the president know and when did he know?" he more than likely did try to cover it up after the fact but that was the product of the bogus investigation into his involvement into the break-in...
...in any case the question for a media of evenhandedness [I know, I know] now should become "what did comey know and when did he know it?" if he cannot be connected to the claim of what? perjury? lying to congress? Obstruction? whatever it is and no matter its validity it can, as with watergate, be dragged in many different directions with mythical sources late at night in a dark dank underground garage with no witnesses...
...Nixon had just won a lanslide election, something needed to be done about that and it was.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

By Watergate do you mean the break in itself or the illegal stuff that followed?

By "illegal stuff that followed" what stuff was that exactly?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

This explains why my fellow conservatives here have no answer when I ask them what James Comey lied about. Even Fox News says there’s no proof James Comey lied.

"[The indictment] seems to be premised on something that's not true, which is that [former Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe said that Comey authorized him to leak to the Wall Street Journal. If you look closely at what McCabe said, what McCabe said was that he directed a leak to The Wall Street Journal and told Comey about it after the fact," McCarthy explained.

“"So it's true that Comey never authorized it in the sense of okaying it before it happened," the legal expert expanded. "So I don't see how they can make that case."

Legal expert sees no viable case against James Comey after Trump DOJ indictment

The indictment against former FBI Director James Comey "seems to be premised on something that's not true," Fox News contributor and legal analyst Andrew McCarthy cautions.

www.foxbusiness.com

Update: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/17/lindsey-halligan-indictment-james-comey-00654224

 

[Rambunctious]

Update: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/17/lindsey-halligan-indictment-james-comey-00654224

Give us a break... everyone knows Comey was bad.... whether he can be convicted with Obama judges is not the point.... no one is above the law and the law always catches up to you.... one way or the other....

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

This criminal is gonna walk

 

[the other mike]

A military tribunal sentence for treason would be more appropriate for Jim .

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

This criminal is gonna walk

How is he a criminal then?