Free pass, hehe. Where have I heard that before. Justice is the equal distribution of bad decisions.....
I think LR wound disagree. Perhaps he will explain again why he never succumbed to the notion of her guilt in the first place, that under a
transcendently moral system of justice she maintains a pristine state.
What I see is that he has accorded her the dignity due any citizen not guilty of crime and you lack the integrity to do the same. For you its all about the opinions you have. You are self indulgent.
BUt I can SEE the evidence of her crimes and I can see her lies. I understand (and agree with) Comey's reasoning not to prosecute, but that doesn't mean I should ignore what is extremely apparent.
I tried to present a case of being not guilty... (she is always innocent until guilt is proved) of criminal offenses and I think the result of which wipes the slate clean. That slate ought be clean throughout the process in any case but let's assume she made mistakes and let's assume she responded to the allegations of criminal wrongdoing in a truthful manner as she believed was the honest evaluation of her actions. How can I find fault in that? Well, I can't.
Now you wonder about my thinking about her potential to be president. Well, that bit is easy. I think she has all the requisite qualifications necessary to function in that position the ability to cross the street notwithstanding. You say she lied about everything. Your special insight into the mind of Hillary is... well, informative should I choose to accept you possess that special insight. I reject it and instead apply my own and previously articulated position of her statements. I suspect you have a bias controlling your analysis. I'm not sure that you accept the outcome of FBI's analysis. It appears to me you have supplanted the FBI position with your own. That, if true, certainly informs your position and is consistent with what you've written regarding how my position is informed. We simply apply what our mind conjures and in this case we conjure differently.
No special insight, dude. But go through her statements defending herself and compare them with Comey's reported results. She lied to us at every single stage.
The bold bit I just have to take issue with. 'Bad enough' suggests all the elements of crime are present but there is some sort of threshold one must proceed beyond to be indicted. Like; one must send 29 classified emails to be indicted but 28 is an ok scenario. Mens Rea.... Mens Rea.... she could have sent a bazillion as far as I'm concerned and not be subjected to an indictment failing to show she did so with a bad heart.
Look... All we have is our Justice system protecting us from the evil folks living in other places have to live with. That Justice system suggests that its rules must apply for each person regardless of any other consideration. If you choose to apply some rules or only some folks get them or that some sort of failure occurred and someone 'went free' who was otherwise guilty then you chip away at the system and if you do it enough and long enough you might as well install Sharia or perhaps the Church of Rome as the arbiter of justice.
IOW, if it were possible for me to have witnessed a crime and be a juror and that I knew the defendant did the crime I'd still vote according to the evidence presented... If the prosecution failed to present compelling evidence of guilt I'd vote 'Not guilty'. BTW, it is not 'innocent' but, rather 'not guilty'.
Mens Rea does not protect from gross negligence, even if you accept the dubious notion that the smartest woman in the world was utterly clueless at doing her job for four years. As far as equal justice, we already know we don't have that. We see people regularly prosecuted for mishandling classified documents without anyone even inquiring as to whether they knew they were committing a crime. Do you recall ANYONE questioning whether David Petraeus knew he was committing a crime by giving his biographer/lover access to classified documents?
What about Bryan Nishimura? Less than one year ago, the FBI together with the NCIS successfully prosecuted Mr. Nishimura for unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials without malicious intent - EXACTLY what the FBI found Mrs. Clinton had done. Except of course that unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Nishimura never sent any classified information to anyone. What about Stephen Kim? The FBI successfully prosecuted Mr. Kim for divulging to reporter James Rosen information about North Korea that everyone "knew", but which was classified for Mr. Kim because the State Department actually had confirmation derived through intelligence sources. What about Kristian Saucier, whom the FBI successfully prosecuted for taking two cell phone photos of a submarine engine? The engine was presumably not stamped "Classified" and the FBI found no intent to redistribute, yet they prosecuted because as part of his job Mr. Saucier is expected to know what is classified and to observe rules about such.
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/pres...removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
https://theintercept.com/2015/02/18/destroyed-by-the-espionage-act/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/27/navy-sailor-set-plead-guilty-classified-photos/
I share your concern about the double standard in our legal system, but clearly Mrs. Clinton benefitted from it rather than was threatened with it. The Obama administration has prosecuted far more people under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined. Yet even while aggressively going after whistleblowers, the same administration gives itself a blatant pass for the same mishandling.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...apper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/
Hillary herself famously said that classified information deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so because it affect
the security of individuals and relationships. Note that at the time she said this, the Obama administration in which she served was very aggressively prosecuting people for doing the exact same violations she was doing by setting up and operating an unsecured, not-authorized private server.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422533/hillary-and-bill-vs-little-people-john-fund
The double standard is here, and it IS Hillary Clinton.