Ladies and Gentlemen (etc) of the Jury, the choice is in your hands. | Eastern North Carolina Now

   No one has asked my opinion on the FBI director's press conference on July 5, 2016. Since that has never stopped me before, I offer my two cents worth here. Bobby Tony

   First, as a non-lawyer, I have no definitive legal opinions on the announcement by the FBI director.  I have noticed that in the legal arena there are always two lawyers with opposing views. They argue their case on the minute details of something that should be obvious to a layman.  I have long held the opinion that when a non-criminal case goes to court it is because of a lack of clarity in the law or contract.  Since lawyers for the most part write and pass the laws, it is no surprise that there is always a "what if" wiggle clause in every law.

   In criminal court cases, the burden lies on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of the defendant's peers the guilt of the accused.  This is fundamental to our basic principles of due process.  In politics there is always a "What if" component to the situation.

   It appears to me that Director James Comey realized that proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt with the current administration in charge of prosecuting Hillary Clinton would be an impossible task.  The POTUS was actively campaigning with Hillary at the time of the announcement.  The Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently met with former President Bill Clinton director.  Regardless of how you characterize the meeting, it occurred between two people of obvious legal and political expertise.

   Naturally, the political partisans of both sides have begun the prosecution and defense of Hillary Clinton.  It appears that as of now (July 6, 2016) there will be no legal charges filed against Mrs. Clinton on the subject of Emails and National Security.

   It also appears that James Comey (Wiki James Comey) has a history of impartial and straightforward strict adherence to the letter of the law. He will be praised and / or vilified depending on the particular political ditch people inhabit.   Here is the FBI Transcript of the press conference.

   I offer for consideration the view point that James Comey has correctly identified the landscape of the legal minefield ahead.  Regardless of the future legal actions, the final decision will be made by some court in future years.  It is always the case in large issues of legality that appeals and briefs are offered ad infinitum until finally it reaches the Supreme Court.  It is then decided by nine judges who themselves have been appointed and confirmed by a partisan group of politicians.

   Perhaps FBI Director Comey has made the determination that we should cut to the chase and let the people of the voting public make the decision.  I am trying to resist the temptation to say that the future of the country is on the line because it is always on the line with every election from county commissioner to president of the United States.  The decision will be made in November of 2016. 

   Regardless if you believe the system is rigged, or poisoned by partisan politics, the solution is within our hands in November.  His press conference on July 5, 2016. Coming just one day after our celebration of Independence Day, perhaps an extract of the words of the Declaration that started this country is worth consideration. However, instead of only 56 signers, we will have 146,311,000 registered voters who could make the same pledge to take our country back.

   Are you prepared to sign on the non dotted line? Unlike the 56 signers, no one will know what choice you made individually but as a group the American public can make the same declaration.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Update July 7, 2016 Wait there is more.

Here is another thought on this issue:

   In a town like Washington where leaks are a way of life and there is never an audit trail, is it just possible that both Lorretta Lynch, Bill and Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew what FBI director James Comey would say in his press conference.  I am giving Director Comey the benefit of doubt that he knows he is swimming in the deep end of the pool full of sharks.

   That would allow them the time to arrange the scenario that has recently played out.

1. The meeting on the plane between Bill and Loretta was set to create a opportunity for Lorretta to explain that she would follow the FBI suggestion. (She knew the result beforehand)

2. President Obama schedules the campaign trip with Hillary knowing that the announcement would be not to pursue indictment.

3. Director James Comey knowing that his decision was already leaked to the political class decides to lay out the real abuses of Hillary Clinton to get it on the record in a public forum.

4. Lorretta Lynch announced just a couple of days after the FBI press conference that she is good to her word and will follow director Comey's suggestion.No indictment.

5. Everyone knows the Republican Congress will overreact and decided to hold congressional hearings to beat this dead horse to a final death again.

6. Pundits accuse James Comey of being a lapdog of the Democrats and the focus is shifted from Hillary to James Comey.

7. The Democrat talking points resort to the Clintonian defense of "Lets move on, this is old news"

8. Yawn -----The public is sick of the whole debacle and just wishes they could get back to their daily lives and get this damn election over with.

   I could be wrong here, because I did not get a program or script when I sat down for this performance. Stay tuned, Director James Comey is scheduled to testify in congress today.  I may be able to squeeze just one more update into this article before I go back to sleep.

<! written and coded on July7. 2016 at 5:52AM>

July 8, 2016 Update  

   James Comey has testified and now we are left to debate the decision he made. My biggest concern now is that we will focus on my point 6 above as opposed to the Clinton's continued ability to rise above the law.  

The keyword here is "REASONABLE" as in: 

  No "REASONABLE" prosecutor would...
  "REASONABLE" people can disagree...
    Prove beyond a "RESONABLE" doubt...
    Here is the definition:

  I kind of like the last one "Satisfactory or not bad." She did not maintain a REASONABLE degree of security with her emails.

   Unfortunately, REASONABLE is also a legal term used by lawyers to construct a smoke screen to obfuscate the reality.

   "As a legal fiction, the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person, leading to great difficulties in applying the concept in some criminal cases, especially in regards to the partial defense of provocation. The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances. While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself. The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law.

   The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different. It is used to determine contractual intent, or if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven. The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.

   The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment." (WIKIPEDIA)

   Now, isn't that more clearer?

   I am have a quandary about this whole scenario.   Is it possible that Hillary Clinton is both the smartest woman in the world and the most ignorant at the same time? Is she ignorant of the security protocols of dealing with classified documents and subjects?  I come down on the side of smart (not 'est).  One of the underlying Clintonian factors here is that there is never any credible evidence of wrongdoing in anything they do.  I have upgraded numerous personal computers during my life and I have never left any credible evidence of my emails on any of the old computers. "Clinton's lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery".

   But in all honesty, reasonable people can disagree (no sarcasm intended) and I urge the readers to make up their own mind on this matter   Perhaps you may wish to sign in as a member and make your own comments.  It is simple, all you have to do is join as a member and you can make comments or submit articles.  Just follow this link to become a participating member of the BCN community. Join as a member here. You will not be inundated with advertisement or solicitations.

 For another perspective please read this article recently posted here on BCN.    The Fix is in.