GOP to examine FBI decision on Clinton emails

[webfact]

GOP to examine FBI decision on Clinton emails
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Irate that Hillary Clinton will not face criminal charges over her emails, House Republicans are summoning FBI Director James Comey to Capitol Hill to answer their questions.

Comey will testify Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the panel's chairman, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, announced Wednesday. The announcement came a day after Comey rebuked Clinton for "extremely careless" behavior in her handling of classified emails as secretary of state, but declared that "no charges are appropriate" in the case.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement Wednesday evening that she was accepting Comey's recommendation and the case would be closed.

"There are a lot of questions that have to be answered. And so we're going to be asking those questions," House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters, adding that it looked like Clinton had gotten preferential treatment. "We have seen nothing but stonewalling and dishonesty from Secretary Clinton on this issue, and that means there are a lot more questions that need to be answered."

Ryan said Clinton should be barred from receiving classified briefings in the course of the campaign. He said he would be looking into whether Congress could take action to enact such a prohibition. And asked whether a special prosecutor should be appointed in the case, Ryan said he wouldn't "foreclose any option."

Ryan's comments reflected widespread anger, even disbelief, among Republicans over Comey's announcement. Comey delivered a stinging assessment of Clinton's handling of classified emails, saying she should have known not to have sensitive discussions on an unclassified system and that she sent and received emails that were classified at the time, contrary to her claims. But he followed up by saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in such a case, partly because his investigators found no intentional or willful mishandling of classified information.

"The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing," Chaffetz said. "The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable."

Democrats were furious over Chaffetz's election-year decision to haul Comey before his committee.

"Republican after Republican praised Director Comey's impeccable record of independence_right up until the moment he issued his conclusion," said the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland. "The only emergency here is that yet another Republican conspiracy theory is slipping away."

Clinton's spokesman, Brian Fallon, denounced Chaffetz's hearing as "another taxpayer-funded sham."

The House Judiciary Committee also announced that Lynch would appear to testify next week, as Republicans kept up their criticism of her recent brief tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton, which Lynch has described as unplanned and purely social. And No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, called for the FBI to make public its recent 3 1/2-hour interview with Clinton.

Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential candidate who looks certain to face Democrat Clinton for president, complained that the system is "rigged," and that "it was no accident that charges were not recommended against Hillary the exact same day as President Obama campaigns with her for the first time."

The FBI is supposed to be insulated from partisanship, with directors appointed to serve 10-year terms under legislation passed in 1976 following J. Edgar Hoover's extraordinary 48-year tenure. Comey is a Republican first nominated to a senior Justice Department post by George W. Bush, where he served as deputy attorney general, and tapped to lead the FBI in 2013 by President Barack Obama.

Comey has tangled publicly with the Obama administration in the past, particularly over his public speculation that recent crime increases in some cities relate to police officers backing off out of concern for "viral videos" of their actions.

The FBI chief seemed to anticipate criticism over his decision on Clinton, offering something of a pre-buttal at the end of his statement Tuesday.

"I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout the investigation," Comey said. "What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done honestly, confidently and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."

___

Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-07-07

[NeverSure]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

[Pinot]

Republicans put all their eggs in the "Hillary is going to prison" basket. When the Republican FBI director didn't deliver the indictment then the Republicans had no other choice than to kill the messenger. What, she can't be innocent!

The same old "The Fix was in" conspiracy bullshit over and over again. Republicans are pathetic....and predictable.

Get use to "Madam President".

[NovaBlue05]

Chaffetz and the rest of those Bozos don't give a rats derrier about whatever Hillary did with the emails or Benghazi for that matter. It's a dog and pony show for them o grandstand and make the supporters back home think they are doing something. Fact is....they far prefer Hillary in the White House than Trump for fear of disturbing their pig trough.

[bassman]

One thing is for certain, this case of espionage against the queen of the democrats will go on well past November. And for you Demos that squeal about the expense, sure it will be far less than the tax money Americans spend on Obama and hitting the campaign trail on Air Force 1. All in a effort to "rebuild the trust of the racketeering witch" at American tax payer expense.

If elected, only you pant suitor's will be calling her madam president, the rest of us will still be calling her the b-itch.

[ilostmypassword]

One thing is for certain, this case of espionage against the queen of the democrats will go on well past November. And for you Demos that squeal about the expense, sure it will be far less than the tax money Americans spend on Obama and hitting the campaign trail on Air Force 1. All in a effort to "rebuild the trust of the racketeering witch" at American tax payer expense.

If elected, only you pant suitor's will be calling her madam president, the rest of us will still be calling her the b-itch.

If she's elected, the pant suitors will be the majority of Americans. So who cares what you losers call her?

[Norvid]

Did Clinton's maffia made this happen?

[pitrevie]

One thing is for certain, this case of espionage against the queen of the democrats will go on well past November. And for you Demos that squeal about the expense, sure it will be far less than the tax money Americans spend on Obama and hitting the campaign trail on Air Force 1. All in a effort to "rebuild the trust of the racketeering witch" at American tax payer expense.

If elected, only you pant suitor's will be calling her madam president, the rest of us will still be calling her the b-itch.

So no change then since for the past 8 years the present incumbent has had to put up with the same.

[JingerBen]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

Excellent summing-up of the situation to date.

In the event of a Clinton win in November it will be interesting to see if Lynch keeps her job as Attorney General.

[Thaidream]

Hillary is not a criminal- she has not been convicted of anything. She did use poor judgement and her ethics are questionable. If anyone else except Trump was running against her- they may have a chance to beat her. However, this election year is different- Trump is not qualified to be President. He has no depth and he plays to everything that is wrong in American society. He has no plan to help anyone. Hillary will be elected but she will do little to help the middle class or poor. America is in a sad state. If this continues and Americans continue to have no choice- Americans will finally take matters into their own hands. The next American Revolution is coming.

[Pinot]

Hillary is not a criminal- she has not been convicted of anything. She did use poor judgement and her ethics are questionable. If anyone else except Trump was running against her- they may have a chance to beat her. However, this election year is different- Trump is not qualified to be President. He has no depth and he plays to everything that is wrong in American society. He has no plan to help anyone. Hillary will be elected but she will do little to help the middle class or poor. America is in a sad state. If this continues and Americans continue to have no choice- Americans will finally take matters into their own hands. The next American Revolution is coming.

This is something repeated often in the Fox News media echo chamber. They can't face the fact that the majority of Americans are dismissing the nativism, xenophobia and cynicism Trump represents. The next Republican President hasn't been born yet.

The biggest threat to America isn’t radical Islam, it’s radical Republicans.

[Thaidream]

I am certain of one thing. Should Trump be elected- the dollar will fall immediately at least by 10 per cent and the stock markets Worldwide by about the same. It will be an economic disaster far worse then Brexit ever was. Trump is a disaster in the making. If Clinton is elected the markets will not react- She has a plan, whether you agree or not, and represents stability. Vote your choice.

[fatyank]

Cronyism & Corruption are alive & well in the good ole' USA.

Just remember that when they start criticising Foreign governments for the same practice

[NeverSure]

Remember, the laws on classified material handling don't require intent. They just require negligence in the handling for it to be a crime. Hillary was more than negligent she was scheming and deleting about 30,000 emails that belonged to The People.

There is no debate that her server was hacked by at least one foreign government and that could provide material for blackmail of a prospective POTUS not to mention what secrets might have been learned.

This thing is really ugly and many people have gone to jail for less than this but of course, not a Clinton.

This video is damning.

[helpisgood]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

Just FYI, I found the following on the FBI website's FAQ page (For some of our non-American friends, a U.S. Attorney means a federal, as in Wash. D.C. govt. level, prosecutor.):

"Does the FBI work through U. S. Attorneys?

Yes. Although the FBI is responsible for investigating possible violations of federal law, the FBI does not give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. The federal prosecutors employed by the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorneys offices are responsible for making this decision and for conducting the prosecution of the case." [Emphasis added]

Here's a link to that page:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

Quite honestly, I had thought before reading the above that it would be okay for the FBI to merely recommend or not recommend prosecution. However, I was certain that the FBI could not decide whether or not to prosecute.

I do believe that it's odd that the U.S. Attorney General, the federal government's chief prosecutor, would totally defer the decision to prosecute (as I understand Lynch's statement) to the FBI. The FBI's job is to investigate and thus gather evidence for prosecutors who then decide whether and how to prosecute based upon such evidence.

Thanks for the info, NeverSure!

[stevenl]

I'm sure this appeals to their core base, the ones who will vote for them whatever happens (although DT may change that).

But they'd better worry about making the country better, and they'd better focus on the upcoming elections. And for both of those things they're not doing themselves any favours with this charade.

[grumpyoldman]

Right whingers can p*ss and moan about this all they want, keep it alive as that is all they've got. It's been thrown on the wall, it's not sticking.

The reality is the orange mophead still has a ton of troubles, why can't he find people to speak at the convention? They don't support him. His OWN party. Longtime Republicans not going, not speaking, not backing.

Still factions there that are going to try to block him at the convention and I don't care how many times people want to bring up "oh yea, the email scandal", a party that puts up a candidate that many within the party don't back, including GOP leaders is a disaster.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/donald-trump-delegates-not-enough-hold-line/index.html

Dump Trump.

[2fishin2]

After holding a US government for over 34 years with many different levels of access I can say without a doubt, something is fishy and this isnt over.

[grumpyoldman]

After holding a US government for over 34 years with many different levels of access I can say without a doubt, something is fishy and this isnt over.

I guess on a forum board poster's can claim a lot of things aye? The only ones this isn't over with are the right whingers who hang their hopes on your statement.

Pretty bleak.

BTW I'm Mayor of San Francisco, can I sell you a bridge?

[slipperylobster]

Right whingers can p*ss and moan about this all they want, keep it alive as that is all they've got. It's been thrown on the wall, it's not sticking.

The reality is the orange mophead still has a ton of troubles, why can't he find people to speak at the convention? They don't support him. His OWN party. Longtime Republicans not going, not speaking, not backing.

Still factions there that are going to try to block him at the convention and I don't care how many times people want to bring up "oh yea, the email scandal", a party that puts up a candidate that many within the party don't back, including GOP leaders is a disaster.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/donald-trump-delegates-not-enough-hold-line/index.html

Dump Trump.

Blind and ignorant.....Hillary's followers just sold out America. Nothing in the books call for leniency. She needs to drop out. I really do not care what you think trump is. Even he is orange and a bit mouthy. Do not become an ignoramous by supporting Hillary and her destructive past.

[rgraham]

The whole three ring event has to do with protecting positions. These government welfare cases just want to save their jobs. Remember that hillbillary became secretary of state by taking a backseat to barry bammy in his first disastrous term.

[Publicus]

FBI recommends. FBI does not decide. The vast majority of Americans know this and have in fact internalised the knowledge as everyday common awareness.

Attorney General decides. In this instance, the AG said beforehand she would accept the recommendation of the FBI. This is what has occurred, as is the topic at another thread, i.e., the AG has formally accepted the formal recommendation of the FBI and the AG has now formally closed the case.

Yes, case closed. So the fun of any conspiracy theory is that one can make it whatever one wants it to be at any time to meet any requirements of the theorist/whackjobber.

President Obama btw has a public approval rating of 56% while the Congress (D or R) has an approval rating so low that there's a joke, that even the most sophisticated polling organisations aren't able to measure it because the number is too minute and miniscule. The last known approval rating of the congress maximus was something like 6%.

This is what happens when the congress over a long period declines to pass any laws or to amend existing laws, preferring instead to spend money on political pursuits only and forever, going back to the Clinton impeachment and trial that failed because Americans knew it was entirely political and partisan Republican politics. Nothing has changed right up to the present moment.

The inmates continue to run the institution.

Until November. So go at it guyz...

Edited July 7, 2016 by Publicus

[Buzzz]

And for you Demos that squeal about the expense, sure it will be far less than the tax money Americans spend on Obama and hitting the campaign trail on Air Force 1. All in a effort to "rebuild the trust of the racketeering witch" at American tax payer expense.

Actually, the campaign picks up the tab on these campaign trips...but don't let the facts influence your viewpoint.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Buzzz

[stevenl]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

The basis of your reasoning "This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch." is incorrect. It was Lynch who has decided, the FBI has only recommended.

Since the basis is incorrect your whole reasoning is flawed.

[Buzzz]

FBI recommends. FBI does not decide. The vast majority of Americans know this and have in fact internalised the knowledge as everyday common awareness.

Attorney General decides. In this instance, the AG said beforehand she would accept the recommendation of the FBI. This is what has occurred, as is the topic at another thread, i.e., the AG has formally accepted the formal recommendation of the FBI and the AG has now formally closed the case.

Yes, case closed. So the fun of any conspiracy theory is that one can make it whatever one wants it to be at any time to meet any requirements of the theorist/whackjobber.

President Obama btw has a public approval rating of 56% while the Congress (D or R) has an approval rating so low that there's a joke, that even the most sophisticated polling organisations aren't able to measure it because the number is too minute and miniscule. The last known approval rating of the congress maximus was something like 6%.

This is what happens when the congress over a long period declines to pass any laws or to amend existing laws, preferring instead to spend money on political pursuits only and forever, going back to the Clinton impeachment and trial that failed because Americans knew it was entirely political and partisan Republican politics. Nothing has changed right up to the present moment.

The inmates continue to run the institution.

Until November. So go at it guyz...

Yep. All the way back to the sham impeachment trail of Bill Clinton.

The republicans had just wasted $60 million taxpayer dollars in a failed investigation of the Clintons entire history. Uncovered nothing. A dilemma, so they decided to "ask Bill about his mistress under oath"

What a bunch of scumbags.

Meanwhile, during the sham impeachment hearings, the President of USA was obviously distracted by the endless legal harassment nonsense, but still did his job as President.

Fact is, he was working on urgent national security issues, targeting Bin Laden (before anyone had heard that name.)

Clinton boldly launched a cruise missle strike into his training camp in Afghanistan. Unfortunately Bin Laden survived the strike.

After the missile strike, the Republicans said what?

"Bill Clinton just did that to distract the public from the important issues"...their sham impeachment trial.

[helpisgood]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

The basis of your reasoning "This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch." is incorrect. It was Lynch who has decided, the FBI has only recommended.

Since the basis is incorrect your whole reasoning is flawed.

However, you are ignoring an important point. AG Lynch decided BEFORE the FBI's announced recommendation that she would accept their recommendation, whatever that may be.

Among many others, see:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-to-back-fbi-and-justice-findings-in-clinton-email-server-probe/2016/07/01/77ce6d8e-3f78-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html

In effect, she had stated that the federal government's chief prosecutor will rubber stamp whatever the FBI recommends. Is it not the AG's responsibility, being the prosecutor and not the investigator, to review the FBI's provided evidence and decide whether or not to prosecute? Should local District Attorneys consistently allow the police to decide whether to prosecute as well?

Edited July 7, 2016 by helpisgood

[mopar71]

The Hillary supporters cheering at this news is no different than the many blacks who cheered when OJ Simpson was found innocent 22 years ago.

Back then, many blacks didn't care that a gruesome murder had been committed and the murderer (OJ) had been caught practically red-handed. The most important thing to them was that a black man beat the police in court! "Yeah! hooray for our side! We sure showed them!! What? A murderer was set free? Yeah, so what? The jury said he didn't do it!"

It was sad 22 years ago, and it is sad today. Except that today it isn't about a handful of people, it is about the fate of 320 million and their country.

[mopar71]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

And it was all telegraphed for the world to see.

After the meeting with Bill Clinton last week, the New York Times headline was that Lynch would accept the recommendation of the FBI. As you say, the FBI doesn't "recommend" so what is she talking about?

Fast forward a few days later and the FBI recommends not to indict - even after outlining all of her crimes. Director Comey then walks away without explanation or taking questions.

Two days later, Lynch accepts that mysterious FBI recommendation.

Congress would be shirking its responsibility if it didn't call those two in to ask questions.

[MaxYakov]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

Just FYI, I found the following on the FBI website's FAQ page (For some of our non-American friends, a U.S. Attorney means a federal, as in Wash. D.C. govt. level, prosecutor.):

"Does the FBI work through U. S. Attorneys?

Yes. Although the FBI is responsible for investigating possible violations of federal law, the FBI does not give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. The federal prosecutors employed by the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorneys offices are responsible for making this decision and for conducting the prosecution of the case." [Emphasis added]

Here's a link to that page:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

Quite honestly, I had thought before reading the above that it would be okay for the FBI to merely recommend or not recommend prosecution. However, I was certain that the FBI could not decide whether or not to prosecute.

I do believe that it's odd that the U.S. Attorney General, the federal government's chief prosecutor, would totally defer the decision to prosecute (as I understand Lynch's statement) to the FBI. The FBI's job is to investigate and thus gather evidence for prosecutors who then decide whether and how to prosecute based upon such evidence.

Thanks for the info, NeverSure!

I suspect that FBI Director Comey was assigned the task of attempting to plausibly squelch this because they don't trust Lynch and/or the DOJ to do it. She's had her three strikes: 1) Clinton Phoenix meeting, 2) Orlando 911 call editing, 3) Threats to prosecute those who use 'Anti-Muslim' speech.

She's so obviously incompetent that even the Democrat establishment has avoided trusting her with this task.

So, FBI Director Comey has crossed his Rubicon. Or he hasn't really crossed it and is midstream in over his head and weighed-down by his armor. Perhaps he will drown. He is not a Julius Caesar.

"alea iacta est" - the die is cast

Edited July 7, 2016 by MaxYakov

[Buzzz]

For non-Americans, it isn't within the jurisdiction of any law enforcement agency including the FBI to decide whether to prosecute. They engage in police work, gathering evidence. They give it to a prosecutor who decides whether there is sufficient evidence and whether to prosecute. In some circumstances the evidence has to go to a grand jury of ordinary citizens who vote on whether to prosecute.

This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch.

Some very unusual things happened in the past week, much of which would be at the least a violation of ethics.

1. Attorney General Lynch who has the say about prosecuting met with her former boss and worse, a potential witness in the case on a private airplane all of which was supposed to be private. That of course was Bill Clinton.

2. Almost the next day the FBI said it was meeting with Hillary about the case.

3. The FBI then held a press conference and did what it has no authority to do - said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted.

4. At the same time that the head of the FBI was making this press conference statement, his boss, Obama, was boarding Air Force One to go campaign with Hillary. Why would Obama do that unless he knew what the head of the FBI would say on that very day?

The US has 3 branches of government. Congress, the courts (the Judicial Branch) and The Executive branch which answers to the president. That includes the Department of Justice of which the FBI is part. The FBI works directly for Obama. So does the Attorney General - Lynch.

Now the Legislative Branch - Congress has called for immediate hearings about this which is their job. It's about checks and balances if people are honorable.

I haven't talked to a single person today from any party who isn't flabbergasted that the head of the FBI stepped outside his job description and said Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted when that isn't his call to make. That call belongs to Lynch who had just met privately with Bill Clinton at an airport.

Each can draw his own conclusions for reasons behind all of this but to say the least it's far outside of normal protocol. That's putting it nicely.

Cheers.

The basis of your reasoning "This whole thing is most unusual and entirely perplexing. Law enforcement - the police called the FBI decided not to prosecute when that decision actually rests with the Attorney General - Lynch." is incorrect. It was Lynch who has decided, the FBI has only recommended.

Since the basis is incorrect your whole reasoning is flawed.

However, you are ignoring an important point. AG Lynch decided BEFORE the FBI's announced recommendation that she would accept their recommendation, whatever that may be.

Among many others, see:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-to-back-fbi-and-justice-findings-in-clinton-email-server-probe/2016/07/01/77ce6d8e-3f78-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html

In effect, she has stated that the federal government's chief prosecutor will rubber stamp whatever the FBI recommends. Is it not the AG's responsibility, being the prosecutor and not the investigator, to review the FBI's provided evidence and decide whether or not to prosecute? Should local District Attorneys consistently allow the police to decide whether to prosecute as well?

Lots of confusion.

The police receive a complaint, investigate and decide if there is ample evidence to forward the case to the prosecutor.

The prosecutor does not see every complaint the police receive.

The prosecutor then decides to prosecute if they feel the evidence is strong enough to get a judge to convict.