Was Comey that ignorant?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
“I don’t know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the time,” Comey told the IG."

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/14/comey-abedin-weiner-ig-report/

I don't know that I knew? Does anybody believe that hack?

Yes. Lots of people believe him. But they haven't always believed him. They wanted him waterboarded, hanged, and burned as a liar and a traitor, back when he opened that investigation against Hillary. But ever since he decided to exonerate her without even so much as interviewing her--they started trusting him again and now they think he is an innocent, honest, angel.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Yes. Lots of people believe him. But they haven't always believed him. They wanted him waterboarded, hanged, and burned as a liar and a traitor, back when he opened that investigation against Hillary. But ever since he decided to exonerate her without even so much as interviewing her--they started trusting him again and now they think he is an innocent, honest, angel.

You do realize that Hillary was interviewed by FBI agents for 4 hours, don't you?

I don't find it hard to believe that Comey didn't know that Huma was married to Weiner; maybe his subscription to the NY Post lapsed or maybe he had slightly more important things to worry about as FBI director.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You do realize that Hillary was interviewed by FBI agents for 4 hours, don't you?

LOL, you do realize he said she would not be charged, before 17 interviews had even taken place, including Hillary's which was 2 months later?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
LOL, you do realize he said she would not be charged, before 17 interviews had even taken place, including Hillary's which was 2 months later?

You are misinformed, as usual. No final decision was made before the HRC interview; if she had lied or made incriminating statements she would have been charged.

The IG report makes clear what virtually every legal commentator not on the right wing fringe was saying before last July; there were no grounds to charge her with any criminal acts.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You are misinformed, as usual. No final decision was made before the HRC interview; if she had lied or made incriminating statements she would have been charged.

The IG report makes clear what virtually every legal commentator not on the right wing fringe was saying before last July; there were no grounds to charge her with any criminal acts.

I'm not misinformed at all. I know the timeline.

"Every legal commentator not on the right wing"

In other words Chris Matthews said Hillary was innocent. Very impressive.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
I'm not misinformed at all. I know the timeline.

"Every legal commentator not on the right wing"

In other words Chris Matthews said Hillary was innocent. Very impressive.

You didn't even know that criminal statutes require "intent", so your "knowledge" is pretty suspect. You can read the IGs report if you want to; it supports my statement.

Like you don't know what is in the criminal law, you apparently don't know there are a lot of sources for legal commentary on the net. That's unfortunate for you,

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You didn't even know that criminal statutes require "intent", so your "knowledge" is pretty suspect. You can read the IGs report if you want to; it supports my statement.

Like you don't know what is in the criminal law, you apparently don't know there are a lot of sources for legal commentary on the net. That's unfortunate for you,

The criminal statutes require either intent, or gross negligence. That latter in this case is so obvious as to be irrefutable. Since I assume (hesitantly) that you know the facts of the case, I need say no more.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
The criminal statutes require either intent, or gross negligence. That latter in this case is so obvious as to be irrefutable. Since I assume (hesitantly) that you know the facts of the case, I need say no more.

I already fully covered these issues two years ago in the "No indictment!" thread and feel no need to rediscover the wheel. The IG's report covers the statute most right wingers think HRC should have been charged with extensively. Here's what it says:

Section 793(f)(1) does not define what constitutes “gross negligence,” nor
have any federal court decisions interpreted this specific provision of the statute.
However, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1) and
identified statements made during the 1917 congressional debate indicating that
the state of mind required for a violation of Section 793(f)(1) is “so gross as to
almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls
just a little short of being willful.” The prosecutors cited a statement by
Congressman Andrew Volstead during the 1917 debate about the predecessor to
Section 793(f)(1):

I want to call attention to the fact that the information that is covered
by this section may be, and probably would be, of the very highest
importance to the Government.... It is not an unusual provision at all.
It occurs in a great many criminal statutes. Men are convicted for
gross negligence, but it has to be so gross as almost to suggest
deliberate intention before a jury will convict. For instance, a person is
killed by a man running an automobile recklessly on a crowded street.
He may, and under the laws of most States would be, adjudged guilty
of manslaughter, and can be sent to State prison....

IG report pp. 30-31.

In Chapter 7, it has a long list of facts which do not support any claim of criminal "gross negligence" p. 255. Thus:

Based on facts evincing a lack of intent to communicate classified information
on unclassified systems, the prosecutors concluded that there was no basis to
recommend prosecution of former Secretary Clinton or the senders of classified
information under Sections 793(d) or (e).
In addition, as described in Chapter Two, prosecutors reviewed the legislative
history of the gross negligence provision in Section 793(f)(1) and court decisions
impacting the interpretation of it. The prosecutors noted that the congressional
debate at the time the predecessor to Section 793(f)(1) was passed indicated that
conduct charged under the provision must be “so gross as to almost suggest
deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short
of being willful.” The prosecutors also reviewed military and federal court cases
and previous prosecutions under Section 793(f)(1), and concluded that they
involved either a defendant who knowingly removed classified information from a
secure facility, or inadvertently removed classified information from a secure facility
and, upon learning this, failed to report its “loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction.”
In addition, based on a review of constitutional vagueness challenges of Sections
793(d) and (e), the Midyear prosecutors observed that “the government would very
likely face a colorable constitutional challenge to the statute if it prosecuted an
individual for gross negligence who was both unaware he had removed classified
information at the time of the removal and never became aware he had done so.”
The prosecutors concluded that based on case law and the Department’s
prior interpretation of the statute, charging a violation of Section 793(f) likely
required evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified
information “knowingly” included the classified information or transferred classified
information onto unclassified systems (Section 793(f)(1)), or learned that classified
information had been transferred to unclassified systems and failed to report it
(Section 793(f)(2)).
Applying this interpretation, the prosecutors concluded that there was no
evidence that the senders of emails knew that classified information had been
improperly transferred to an unclassified system, or that former Secretary Clinton
acted in a grossly negligent manner with respect to receiving emails determined to
contain classified information. According to information reviewed by the OIG, the
prosecutors also considered whether the decision to conduct official business using
a personal server could itself constitute gross negligence, but concluded that
there was no evidence that former Secretary Clinton ever considered the possibility
that classified information would be present in unclassified emails or on her private
email server. p. 256

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

It's a lot of legalese but the bottom line is what I said two years ago; criminal gross negligence is a different kettle of fish from mere extreme carelessness and there was no reasonable possibility that charges would have ever been filed here by any but the most politicized prosecutor.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
You do realize that Hillary was interviewed by FBI agents for 4 hours, don't you?

I don't find it hard to believe that Comey didn't know that Huma was married to Weiner; maybe his subscription to the NY Post lapsed or maybe he had slightly more important things to worry about as FBI director.

LOL!

If Comey didn't know that he knew Huma was Weiner's wife does that mean that Comey might have known at the time but doesn't remember that he knew?

Ya know? 😀

Originally posted by @metal-brain
LOL!

If Comey didn't know that he knew Huma was Weiner's wife does that mean that Comey might have known at the time but doesn't remember that he knew?

Ya know? 😀

Sure that's possible, sometimes it is hard to say when you knew something.

If someone asked me whether I knew on January 1st, 2018 Aaron Rodgers was dating Danica Patrick, I'd have a hard time answering. I know it now but I'm not sure if I knew it then.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Sure that's possible, sometimes it is hard to say when you knew something.

If someone asked me whether I knew on January 1st, 2018 Aaron Rodgers was dating Danica Patrick, I'd have a hard time answering. I know it now but I'm not sure if I knew it then.

I don't think you realize just how stupid you sound defending these swamp creatures.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Comey claimed that he did not know Anthony Weiner was Huma Abedin's husband. Doesn't Comey watch the news?
How could he not know?

Dunno, but Obama said he heard it on the 6 o'clock news like everyone else.

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
I don't think you realize just how stupid you sound defending these swamp creatures.

Marauder would fit in well as one of these swamp creatures, as if anyone gives a damn about his clever lawyer double speak as making a difference regarding the obvious truth.

Till this day he thinks he was a good apologist for Hillary.