“My favorite part? Getting Comey to state that making a false exculpatory statement = intent and consciousness of guilt.”
I agree, but unfortunately it is a victory over something about which does not belong in the conversation. Intent has no bearing on this case. Comey inserting it was improper and probably unconstitutional. It was the act of a defense attorney not an investigator and the very thing that will become the shiny object that distracts the public.
Well yeah you’re probably right. Nixon was reelected in the midst of Watergate controversy. Her idiot “followers” will just love her more for this.
Stuff like “logic” doesn’t work on most people.
Gowdy addressed the intent element of one of the pertinent statutes but dropped the ball, perhaps intentionally for someone with his experience, with regard to the "gross negligence" aspect of the more important statute.
Comey was careful to not use the statutory phrase, "gross negligence" in his statement, but rather described Clinton's behavior as "extremely reckless".
That distinction, or lack of distinction and the relevant federal decisions is were the legal battle should have been, but Gowdy ducked.
Ah, but James Comey is no ordinary investigator. He is a Constitutional scholar, a renowned jurist who knows better than Congress does, what they meant when they wrote the law omitting "intent." And he is smarter than the prosecutors, so he was able to declare that it just isn't reasonable to prosecute Hillary Clinton with the evidence his crack team of investigators has uncovered. Send Congress home, let Comey write law. Send SCOTUS home, let Comey interpret it. Send the AG home, Comey can decide what to prosecute!
The only thing he can't do is understand the meaning of the word "wrong."
As he said today, "What do you mean by 'wrong?'"