Comey’s leaked memos: Who will guard the guardians?

Jerusalem Post ^ | July 12, 2017 | Alan Dershowitz

[SJackson]

Comey should be rebuked by the Justice Department for violating its rules, but there is not enough evidence at the moment to warrant the appointment of another special counsel.

US President Trump has accused former FBI director James Comey of illegality in leaking memos that may have contained classified information. If it is true that the leaked Comey memos – laundered through a law professor in an effort to pressure Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein into appointing a special counsel – contained classified information, who will investigate Comey? Surely the special counsel, Comey’s friend who he helped get appointed, could not conduct a credible investigation. Nor could Rod Rosenstein, who made the appointment. Will yet another special counsel have to be appointed to conduct an investigation of Comey’s leaking?

On the basis of what we now know, it does not appear that Comey committed a crime. What he did, if the allegation turns out to be true, is remarkably similar to what he investigated with regard to Hillary Clinton’s improper use of a private email server. Both Clinton and Comey were sloppy in their handling of classified material and both deserve to be criticized for their negligence. But neither crossed the line into willful criminality. Of course, Hillary’s enemies argue that she did cross the line. And Comey’s enemies will argue the same as to his conduct. But judged by a uniform standard, neither should be prosecuted for what appear to be honest mistakes.

We don’t know at this point whether the Comey memos actually contained information that is classified, and even if so, was it so designated before or after Comey disclosed it? We also don’t know the level of classification, if any. What we do know is that Comey’s claim that he was entitled to leak the memos because he was a “private citizen” is bogus. The memos contained information he obtained as a government employee and the memos were the property of the government. If they contained classified information, he was not entitled to leak them without prior approval.

President Trump was quick to tweet that Comey’s actions were “so illegal.” That is, of course, what Trump’s critics are saying about his actions, and those of his family, his campaign aids and his transition team members. Both sides are rushing to judgment when it comes to criminalizing the political acts of their opponents. Both sides seem to believe that if something done by their opponents is wrong, it should be criminal. But that’s not how our system of justice works. For something to be criminal, it must be explicitly prohibited by an existing criminal statute. There must be a criminal act, accompanied by a criminal intent. Moreover, the law must be clear and unambiguous. These salutary rules are designed to protect Democrats and Republicans alike. But they are being abused by Republicans and Democrats alike in the short-term interest of partisan advantage.

Perhaps the most extreme example of stretching the law to target an individual for a political sin is the recent statement by Richard Painter directed against Donald Trump’s son, who attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer who suggested that she might provide him with negative information about Hillary Clinton. This is what Painter said: “This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States.” He suggested that Trump’s son might be guilty of treason and should be in custody.

But the Constitution specifically defines treason, providing that its definition is exclusive and limited. Here is what it says: “Treason against the United States shall consist only levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” This definition clearly does not cover “an effort to get opposition research” from the Russians. But the Constitution doesn’t seem to matter to those who are convinced that any wrongful action must also be criminal.

Back to the Comey leaks. It is unlikely that there will be any investigation, except perhaps an internal one by the Justice Department. Comey should be rebuked by the Justice Department for violating its rules, but there is not enough evidence at the moment to warrant the appointment of another special counsel. Nor is there enough to conclude, as President Trump hastily did, that Comey’s misconduct was “so illegal.”

[PGalt]

Who will protect us from our protectors? h/t Mark (R.I.P). Scott

James Commie ALERT!

[Diogenesis]

They are attempting to remove the President CHOSEN
by the American people.
So who are they really protecting?
Islam?
Communists?
Pizzagate?
DNC murderers?

I will take ‘all of the above’, Alex.

[Paladin2]

What evidence was there to support appointing Mueller?

[Paladin2]

NWIH did Weasel Comey commit an honest mistske.

[Lumper20]

Hillary definitely gave significant aid and great comfort to the Russians with the gift of OUR uranium. Throw her in prison ASAP. All this BS about Hillary and Comey were merely lax, careless, or sloppy in handling classified INFO is BS. They both had TS plus clearances, and; I damn sure had to ensure every TS document was in the safe and the safe locked at night or anytime we left that area. That was before PC’s. Sending classified info via email using any PC not designated/marked as safe/cleared for that level of classified intel/info is a crime.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

there is not enough evidence at the moment to warrant the appointment of another special counsel.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Alan?

There is absolutely no evidence to support the one we have already.

[combat_boots]

Exactly.

I hate them all.

And now, I hate almost all of DC.

If there’s a CWII that goes hot, I’ll save my fire for the string pullers.

[SkyPilot]

Both Clinton and Comey were sloppy in their handling of classified material and both deserve to be criticized for their negligence. But neither crossed the line into willful criminality. Of course, Hillary’s enemies argue that she did cross the line. And Comey’s enemies will argue the same as to his conduct. But judged by a uniform standard, neither should be prosecuted for what appear to be honest mistakes.

Just wow.

Alan has been making a lot of sense lately, but on this, he goes completely off the rails.

There is no "mistake" here. Both Comey and Hillary committed crimes.

The distribution of known classified material falls under the crime of Espionage.

Moreover, tell the dozens of individuals (DoD contractors, Federal civilians, uniformed military) who stepped outside the lines regarding the safeguard of classified material. They were sent to Federal prisons, paid huge fines, lost their jobs, and were ruined professionally and personally.

And most of them committed 1/100th of the offenses that Hillary committed. Comey's crimes are even worse. He improperly acted as prosecutor, judge, and jury in her case, and let her off the hook because she was Hillary Clinton. Then, Comey took it upon himself to conduct illegal and unethical acts in order to attempt to destroy President Trump.

[rdcbn]

This crap keeps rolling on as our entire health care system implodes, Trump and Tillerson try do undo the unimaginable damage Obama did in the Middle East, and North Korea perfects it's nuclear weapons for it's Iranian proliferation partner while Congress stands by engaging in a colossal circle jerk.

Fact is, Trump is doing a great job getting the county back on track for the embattled middle class after 8 years of Obama’s depredations and Obama’s political predator class and the welfare maggots that feed on the carcasses of the middle class they supply are fighting a desperate rear guard action to keep the supply of carcasses coming.

He is also making amazing progress fighting terrorism and re stabilizing the hot spots around the world that Obama spent so much time and effort de stabilizing

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

[ptsal]

Interesting - Bookmark

[HarleyLady27]

I was reading this earlier, didn't Comey say that after the Trump Tower meeting he was worried so when he got into his ‘Government’ Car, he grabbed his ‘Government encrypted’ laptop and put his notes in there?

If that was the case then those ‘Government encrypted’ notes are the property of the United States Government and he just committed a felony...

And then Comey said he needed to get this information out to the news so he had his ‘friend’ give them the information, so the ‘Government encrypted’ notes were illegally passed to the news through a friend...right???

This is no different than what Hillary did, and was Comey doing this ‘trick’ before and knew what to say about what he did about his investigations on Hillary because he might have been doing the very exact thing himself??? Stealing and sending and giving ‘classified’ information that he knew was ‘protected’???

But because an unseasoned individual like Don Jr. meets with a phony fraud that the DNC, Lynch, Obama and Hillary knows are a group of friends, Don Jr. made the ‘mistake’???

Right, the loony libs are so far out in outer space they don't know anything but just floating around...

[lacrew]

"But judged by a uniform standard, neither should be prosecuted for what appear to be honest mistakes."

I don't think its possible for the director of the FBI to make an 'honest mistake' in such matters. That's the entire reason he filtered his memos through a 'friend'...no 'mistake'...all quite deliberate.

[ptsal]

Was Alan Dershowitz taking a holiday on Fantasy Island when writing this essay?

Perhaps, it is a sample essay for journalism class at Mizzou.

Reset the relativist baseline.

Shame on Dershowitz. Time to know difference between right and wrong.

Again, shame on Dershowitz.

[ptsal]

Take a gander at Alan Dershowitz’s op-ed. Alan has gone off the reality curve and is taking refuge at Fantasy Island.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3569157/posts

[DUMBGRUNT]

he was not entitled to leak them without prior approval.

Yes, of course, you are fully approved from the top, Mrs. Rosenberg. Good to go.

[armourenthusiast]

"there is not enough evidence at the moment to warrant the appointment of another special counsel."

Was there enough evidence at the moment to warrant the appointment of the first special council, Mueller?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Hear, hear!

The salient point about Hillary’s server was that its reason for existence was to evade the law. The Freedom of Information Act. All that money sloshing around from foreign governments to Bill and to the Clinton Foundation was suspect, to put it mildly. Just the fact of the money, let alone what she did for it, violated the Constitution:

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

But the sub rosa use of a private server for official business was a device from legally required scrutiny. People made legit requests for information from the government, and the government didn’t have it because it existed only on the (officially nonexistent) private server.

The fact that there was classified information on that server which should not have been anywhere other than under direct, immediate, personal supervision of Hillary (when she was awake) or in a government controlled safe, is a separate - albeit exceedingly serious - scandal.

“Honest mistakes.” </sarcasm>