First take on the announcement at Powerline blog by Paul Mirengoff, an attorney:
Quote:
Comey’s explanation was odd and unpersuasive on its face. He began by reciting what the law requires for a felony or misdemeanor conviction in cases like this. He then recited the facts as the FBI found them.
When it came time to meld these two strands and present his decision whether to prosecute, Comey made no reference to the legal standard he had articulated a few minutes earlier. Instead, he pulled a switcheroo, formulating a new legal standard based on the elements he says have been present in past cases where prosecutions have been brought for the mishandling of secret/classified information.
I don’t know whether Comey is correct about past prosecutions. For example, did David Petraeus’ case meet the criteria Comey articulated this morning. My sense is that it didn’t, but I’d have to check.
In any event, Comey simply ignored the statutory standard he laid out. A first year associate at a law firm wouldn’t dare present an analysis like this.
|
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...is-morning.php
