They should probably avoid contradicting themselves when announcing the rationale for their judgement.
Right, he didn't say crimes. Do you think he was talking about civil violations of statutes? Which ones?He didn't say crimes. He said potential violations of the statutes that he refused to call criminal. There is a difference.
In this country, resolving what you perceive as a contradiction between FBI press conference and their final recommendation, is not sufficient reason to indict someone.Ok now I understand. Your argument is that because Comey arguably contradicted the FBI decision in his statement, that should not be taken into consideration. Off the record if you will. Maybe he was just throwing a sympathetic bone to the vast right wing conspiracy.
Right, he didn't say crimes. Do you think he was talking about civil violations of statutes? Which ones?
At least she's got that going for her. Right? Maybe these are just civil, could be. There was evidence, according to Comey that laws were broken, potentially.I have no idea & refuse to speculate. All I know is what he said & didn't say, a line you're trying to obscure.
He didn't say crimes. He said potential violations of the statutes that he refused to call criminal. There is a difference.
He said, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." A prosecutor "bringing a case" means criminal charges.
He also described the statutes in question earlier in his statement. Violation of one is a felony, the other a misdemeanor.
There is evidence that she potentially violated those statutes. There is insufficient evidence of criminal intent, or of the level of gross negligence required for a successful prosecution. The FBI essentially ruled that she's a reckless, incompetent buffoon, but not a criminal.
At least she's got that going for her. Right? Maybe these are just civil, could be. There was evidence, according to Comey that laws were broken, potentially.
I understand and accept them, it just doesn't matter to the point being made.He said "No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case". Why is that so difficult to understand & accept?
And, uhh, so what? I didn't see "reckless incompetent buffoon" anywhere in the statement, either.
I understand and accept them, it just doesn't matter to the point being made.
Gross negligence is not the same thing as ordinary negligence. It's much tougher to prove in court. Proving it beyond a reasonable in a criminal proceeding is even tougher than proving by the civil standard. No reasonable prosecutor would pursue this because they very likely would not win.
This is something I think people don't realize about prosecutorial decisions. The main thing that matters to prosecutors is that they pursue cases that they feel near certain they will win. Their win/loss record is what defines them as success or failure.
Now for my personal opinion. I have no interest in the state spending tax payer money to prosecute a crime of neglect that has no proven negative consequence. If it's intentional, then yes. If it's unintentional then I want to see harm or it should probably be a fine or misdemeanor. Again, this part is just my personal opinion.
I can live with that. I can also live with an inquiry into that contradiction so long as it remains professional and within scope.In this country, resolving what you perceive as a contradiction between FBI press conference and their final recommendation, is not sufficient reason to indict someone.
^ this, save the reoffend. That which doesn't kill you politically teaches you to be even more sneaky and paranoidI agree. A prosecution here would have been a waste of time and money. Administrative sanctions like loss of security clearance or loss of job would be appropriate penalties, but the reality is that Clinton is unlikely to receive any punishment. I imagine that she's also not likely to reoffend, though.
I can live with that. I can also live with an inquiry into that contradiction so long as it remains professional and within scope.
Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clintons use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State," she said. "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.
Lynch already took herself out of play so her decision was largely a rubber stamp to what proceeded it.No inquiry will change the validity of Comey's judgement, the important part, so additional inquiry is just spreading the FUD.
What Lynch said today is highly pertinent-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-lynch-hillary-clinton-emails-comey/86780502/
Unanimous recommendation. No indictments. No chance of knocking Clinton out of the race. Them's the cards. Read 'em and weep.
Lynch already took herself out of play so her decision was largely a rubber stamp to what proceeded it.
Clinton's legal troubles are apparently over from a criminality standpoint, although I still see some politically inconvenient federal court rulings in her future related to FOIA requests.
LOL, 100K signatures in 24 hours: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924
Secretary of State Clinton was in direct violation of the agreement between her and the United States of American outlined on the Standard Form 312, section 4. She sent classified information outside of a server with the classification needed to keep the information she was sending secure. Her actions have created a major security violation and could potentially be used by enemies of the state. This petition is being used to reverse the FBI decision and have HRC charged with all of the aforementioned charges, along with any others that are outlined in the SF 312.
LOL, 100K signatures in 24 hours: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924
The explanation is in the story.Some interesting analysis of the email gaps.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ment-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016
Indian billionaires and Russian arms dealers = big donations & speaking fees for the Clinton Family Foundation = "personal & private" emails. Conversely, if there even are any Ukrainian billionaires they likely have other things on which they spend their money, such as politicians who aren't Putin's bitch. Ain't like they are going to outbid Putin.She not only issued a pivotal joint statement with the Indian government on nuclear technology, she also met with Indian billionaires at the start of her visit. On July 22, she met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Thailand to discuss arms control. And yet, if you look at what she claims is her complete email record released by the State Department, on July 18 and July 20 of this trip, she did not send or receive a single email that was deemed work-related.
Could it be that Team Clinton avoided email while she was traveling as a security precaution? Her pattern during other travels doesnt support that possible explanation. During her 2010 visit to Ukraine on July 1-2, for example, she sent and received 38 emails over both days. During her June 27-29, 2012, visit to St. Petersburg, Russia, she sent and received 65 emails over those three days.
Disagree. With someone of Comey's stature, being on the opposition party adds weight to his decision. Clearly Lynch would never indict Hillary no matter how red-handed the guilt, but Comey could be counted on to indict her if he would indict a similarly high level Republican on the same evidence. Mostly that's reputation, but his affiliation helps too since it removes the appearance of political partisanship.Political affiliation is irrelevant.
Listen to what I am saying instead of reacting to it. Why raise the spectre of doubt with admonishment if your intent is to vindicate the suspect?
Certainly a defense contractor engineer or enlisted soldier or someone not of the 1% under similar circumstances would be indicted, prosecuted and probably crushed. However, as much as I'd like to see Hillary indicted and the double standard removed, it would have to start with the Bushies or earlier, back to the limits of the applicable statutes of limitations. Cops don't passively allow people to occasionally run a stop sign and then jump on those who run the same stop sign every day; it has to either be illegal to run it, or not.So in summary, Comey used language that you yourself admitted was subjective, yet I am invoking Communist Russian justice if I point out that it is not the function of the FBI to make subjective determinations on the rule of law. Apparently the vast right wing conspiracy (VRWC) is out to get Clinton, unless of course a Republican vindicates Clinton as was the case with Comey, in which case a member of the VRWC failed to get the memo, or perhaps "some" Republicans are ok so long as they further your personal political agenda. Of course I am equally partisan in the sense that I don't particularly care for the Clintons, so I will admittedly question the outcome with that bias in mind.
Criticism of Clinton is apparently a vote for Trump, and something something Benghazi, nothing burger, Bush. Questioning a contradiction in language is similarly subjective, but expecting clarity in language is whitewashing. Also I should clutch my pearls and sniff vapors.
Would I care to be indicted under similar allegations? I only ask that the political elite face the same repercussions as the little people. What do you think would happen to a defense contractor engineer or enlisted soldier or someone not of the 1% under similar circumstances?
President Trump is going to build a wall between the United States of America and the United States of American. It's going to be an awesome wall and the United States of American is going to pay for it.Lol, indeed. It's creator couldn't even be bothered to get the name of our country right:
LOL, 100K signatures in 24 hours: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924
That is the irony in all of this. Rules and expectations around transparency all increased largely in response to the Bush Administration's complete and utter lack of respect for it. Obama rode into the White House on a wave of discontent over this lack of transparency and unethical conduct. He promised change. And his own SoS undermined that very ideal by implementing a system that's only logical reason to exist is to avoid or control transparency. The secure info semantics is simply the gotcha of a broader ethical question. I bet Kerry doesn't have a private email server.Certainly a defense contractor engineer or enlisted soldier or someone not of the 1% under similar circumstances would be indicted, prosecuted and probably crushed. However, as much as I'd like to see Hillary indicted and the double standard removed, it would have to start with the Bushies or earlier, back to the limits of the applicable statutes of limitations. Cops don't passively allow people to occasionally run a stop sign and then jump on those who run the same stop sign every day; it has to either be illegal to run it, or not.