Ya gotta have elements of the crime alleged to have been committed to move the issue to indictment. The exact statements the committee are harping on were made to the FBI and they didn't indict on that issue. Mens Rea... IF she believed she was telling the truth while under oath or just answering questions to the FBI but those responses were not accurate you'd have to show she knew she was lying.
There is no way for Clinton not to lead Trump. He simply doesn't have the coalition to win. The republicans should seriously be looking for ways to wrest the nomination from his luxurious, classiest, big hands. Clinton is still standing but definitely battered against a more competent opponent. Knowing what we know today, Sanders probably could have put her away.
What we did learn today is that:
The FBI chose not to indict based on gross negligence alone, as there's only been one indictment under that provision in recent history. Comey made a compelling argument for that decision and embarrassed his detractors in the process.
The FBI failed to confirm or deny an investigation into the Clinton foundation, which probably means someone is at least examining it. That is more than just partisan background noise.
The State Department will most likely continue its investigation now that the FBI investigation is complete, which could result in a few Clinton surrogates losing their security clearances. Not exactly a great outcome.
Those scenarios are still political liabilities to Clinton and none of them are partisan in motivation or nature.
The witch hunts and vindictive actions we can expect is a childish move to revoke Clinton's access to security briefings prior to the election, and congress compelling the FBI to investigate Clinton lying under oath during the Benghazi hearings.
Sure seems like a lot of grievance to shield yoga appointments and cookie recipes.
Prove that she knowingly lied during the Benghazi hearings? Fat chance of that but clingers always cling, don't they?
The right knows she's lying. The travesty of justice is that they can't seem to prove it to the law enforcement people able to charge her with those crimes. That has really pissed them off because justice as they see it isn't being done. It's morally outrageous.
Her emails are self evident that she lied when she claimed they did not exist.
Knowingly? That goes back to the intent of the server.
She, with intent, setup the private email.
She, with intent, instructed her staff to send work documents (which included classified) to it.
But this is a Clinton we're talking about. Obviously it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Her emails are self evident that she lied when she claimed they did not exist.
Knowingly? That goes back to the intent of the server.
She, with intent, setup the private email.
She, with intent, instructed her staff to send work documents (which included classified) to it.
But this is a Clinton we're talking about. Obviously it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
I never realized that you had to intend to be negligent in order to be negligent. Fascinating.This becomes inevitable when folk like yourself don't know what the definition of is is, or in your case the meaning of intent. You are trying to punch your way out of a paper bag.
I never realized that you had to intend to be negligent in order to be negligent. Fascinating.
Misstating the statute I see.I never realized that you had to intend to be negligent in order to be negligent. Fascinating.
Yeh, witch hunts are like that. So self righteous. So sure of their convictions. So full of themselves & so full of shit.
I never realized that you had to intend to be negligent in order to be negligent. Fascinating.
Yeh, witch hunts are like that. So self righteous. So sure of their convictions. So full of themselves & so full of shit.
You are confusing the press conference with the rather lengthy responses today around the precedence of gross negligence. Can you explain the difference between gross negligence and extremely careless? I don't mean in a legal sense. I find the terminology fairly interchangeable.Comey never said "gross negligence" & your use of the term indicates your partisan spin. He said "extremely careless". There is a real difference.
I never claimed it was anything but speculative.The whole bit about the Clinton Foundation is pure speculation of the partisan kind, as well. The FBI rarely discloses the existence of any investigation, particularly those that are wishful thinking of that sort. They don't deny even the absurd, either.
A few surrogates losing their clearances is an appropriate response to extreme carelessness. That holds true for anyone entrusted with managing controlled information.The State Dept will be covering their ass & figuring out how to get the money for a massive systems upgrade at the same time. All things considered, the latter is a really good idea. They'll be able to give any SoS the tools they need to do a good job in the mobile age, something Hillary didn't get.
There is nothing to prove. She provided incorrect information under oath. This once again becomes a case of intent. The republicans would be foolish to pursue this path.Prove that she knowingly lied during the Benghazi hearings? Fat chance of that but clingers always cling, don't they?
I never realized that you had to intend to be negligent in order to be negligent. Fascinating.
That's simply stupid. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears so you won't have to face the truth. There is absolutely no doubt at this point that she knowingly and willfully ignored the rules, attempted to destroy evidence, and continually lied to the American people and the FBI about it. It's either intent or stupidity on an enormous scale.
I was on the fence about this until today, but watching the FBI director's questioning, the truth is obvious. Hillary is either a complete idiot, a criminal, or absolutely certain that she's untouchable.
Meh. It's still Obama's State Department, the same people that have lied and obstructed this whole time. The only possible purpose for reopening its investigation (giant air bunnies!) is to have a reason to slow down FOIA requests even more, until after the coronation when she can cease pretending to care about the law.State Dept is reopening its investigation.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...IGATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36742095
True. There's also a chance that Trump will be worse - maybe much worse. As loathsome as is Hillary, she is not necessarily as bad as it can get. Trump has pretty much all her faults, not necessarily in exact proportion but hardly less in toto.With Hillary we know what we're getting, nothing good. With Trump there is the chance he might actually improve something. Think of it as Russian roulette with 2 bullets and one of them has a 50-50 chance of being a dud.
Hope springs eternal.
True, but she understands the game: You can lie to the American people and Congress as much as you wish, as long as you don't lie to the FBI.Her emails are self evident that she lied when she claimed they did not exist.
Knowingly? That goes back to the intent of the server.
She, with intent, setup the private email.
She, with intent, instructed her staff to send work documents (which included classified) to it.
But this is a Clinton we're talking about. Obviously it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
If Hillary would have had her clearances removed because of her mishandling of sensitive data if she were a rank and file employee of the state department how could she still be qualified to be president?
Nope, nothing about security clearances.No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
They do get security clearance investigations, but they cannot be denied security clearance.There are probably a few people who don't get a security clearance investigation. I suspect the President and Vice President are two of them. Maybe the only two.
Awesome. The Kardashians, or at least most of them, qualify too according to that definition. Does that mean any of them should be president?Great question! Let's check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...stitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office
Nope, nothing about security clearances.
If Hillary would have had her clearances removed because of her mishandling of sensitive data if she were a rank and file employee of the state department how could she still be qualified to be president?
Calm down Spanky. I'm not sure how pointing to other supposed bad behavior makes her incompetent behavior any better. Who actively disseminated propaganda? What president hasn't engaged in propaganda?What a fucking stupid question!
She would be qualified because of the same reason someone who goes awol can be president. She would be qualified because of the sale reasons someone who actively disseminated propaganda can be president.
She's qualified because, despite your incessant whining to the contrary, it's irrelevant.
Calm down Spanky. I'm not sure how pointing to other supposed bad behavior makes her incompetent behavior any better. Who actively disseminated propaganda? What president hasn't engaged in propaganda?