FBI on Clinton

[Elmer]

58 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Shouldn't be a long tedious battle, she admitted to knowing what the proper procedure was for handling her SOS e-mail and willfully decided to manage it using a private e-mail server, that's what willful negligence is.  

While I know you're celebrating the victory, I doubt you'd be as elated if this were a republican or Trump or was guilty of the same offenses and was just given a get out of jail free card by a republican POTUS and DOJ.  

HRC being given this pass doesn't mean she's not guilty, it just means DOJ and the FBI don't want to pursue it.  If you're okay with someone who doesn't take national security seriously becoming POTUS then Clinton is your girl.  

DOJ has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her intent was to break the law, or she was willingly negligent.

If you red the report the defense would just point to the find of facts as it relates to other cases.
If you have ever gone to trial you know this will take at least a year to prepare the case and witnesses, subpoenas, deliberations and jury selection. Than you have an appeal process.


 "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling of removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," Comey said.

Furthermore the Defense would simply quote Comey: " "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information..."

based on that quote no prosecutor would take this to trail!

[GolfLug]

45 minutes ago, Elmer said:

There are also Trump supporters who feel Hillary should be in jail for "gross negligence", but have no issue with Trumps "deliberate fraud" with Trump U.

And is Trump is a Hillary plant, he deserves an EGOT, because he will be the best actor in the world!!!
 

But seriously, politics aside what is/should be fair consequence?

[metbid]

2 hours ago, GolfLug said:

In the least I would think if nothing happens (that would not be right) AND she goes on to be the POTUS (that would be okay-ish compared to the option I guess), this whole episode will serve as a major deterrent in her acting entitled or high handed in the future. Well, one can hope.    

(emphasis added)

LOL....no way this will be a deterrent, the Clintons have an entitled disdain for the law or rules when it comes to them.  Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinski, Clinton foundation money from Saudi Arabia etal, the private server, KNOWING that it was against the rules.....

Now, that being said, what a sad state our Political System is in when our only two choices for President that have a chance of being elected are Hillary and The Donald.

Edited July 5, 2016 by metbid

[newtogolf]

19 minutes ago, Elmer said:

DOJ has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her intent was to break the law, or she was willingly negligent.

If you red the report the defense would just point to the find of facts as it relates to other cases.
If you have ever gone to trial you know this will take at least a year to prepare the case and witnesses, subpoenas, deliberations and jury selection. Than you have an appeal process.


 "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling of removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," Comey said.

Furthermore the Defense would simply quote Comey: " "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information..."

based on that quote no prosecutor would take this to trail!

The case against Patraeus wasn't much different, yet they found a way to indict him.  Guilt does not relate to willingness to prosecute.  

[Elmer]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

The case against Patraeus wasn't much different, yet they found a way to indict him.  

"a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."-Sol Wachtler

But an indictment is not the same as conviction.
Once again Federal Prosecutors only like to take cases that they are sure will end in conviction.

[rehmwa]

I'm less upset about not indicting (if intent really is key), but I am upset that there is no administrative reaction.  Upset that people are treated differently in this situation.  Upset that the lefty advocates won't even acknowledge the seriousness of this, even if they still want to support her, the total lack of objectivity on a subject by subject basis is scary.

Not going to jail, but restricted from having any position that requires a security clearance would be very normal in any other case.

This did border on willful disregard.  So we have to decide (since it's now considered unintentional), was she negligent, or stupid, or careless.  I don't think there is any other options.

[No Mulligans]

20 minutes ago, metbid said:

Now, that being said, what a sad state our Political System is in when our only two choices for President that have a chance of being elected are Hillary and The Donald.

Perhaps Biden or Romney running as an independent would win the election.  I'd vote for either one of them before I'd vote for Hillary or Trump.

Crazier things have happened... For example, Hillary and Trump being the candidates for president is pretty crazy.

[newtogolf]

 

5 minutes ago, Elmer said:

"a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."-Sol Wachtler

But an indictment is not the same as conviction.
Once again Federal Prosecutors only like to take cases that they are sure will end in conviction.

Somehow I think the DOJ would take the case if it was Trump and not Hillary but I don't expect you to admit that.  

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Somehow I think the DOJ would take the case if it was Trump and not Hillary but I don't expect you to admit that.  

You just can't plug Trump into this equation and assume all is the same. If you do then you must assume a lot other things like Trump would probably be a Politician instead of a Businessman. 

[Elmer]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

 

Somehow I think the DOJ would take the case if it was Trump and not Hillary but I don't expect you to admit that.  

If the situation was reversed I don't think they would charge him either, 
Most prosecutors will drop or not charge cases they don't think they will win!

I read the directors statement, the FBI indicates that 32 of the 30,000 emails were considered classified and should not have been on an open server. That is less than 1%.

Furthermore the " the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent" and how similar cases were handled.

"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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

I knock Trump for a lot of things, but even charging him on these same facts is not efficient use of the Federal court system!

[metbid]

Now, as I turn on the tv, I see that Hillary has flown to a rally with the President on Air Force One....campaigning on our tax dime.

 

[newtogolf]

23 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I'm less upset about not indicting (if intent really is key), but I am upset that there is no administrative reaction.  Upset that people are treated differently in this situation.  Upset that the lefty advocates won't even acknowledge the seriousness of this, even if they still want to support her, the total lack of objectivity on a subject by subject basis is scary.

Not going to jail, but restricted from having any position that requires a security clearance would be very normal in any other case.

This did border on willful disregard.  So we have to decide (since it's now considered unintentional), was she negligent, or stupid, or careless.  I don't think there is any other options.

Democrats quickly made this a political issue not one of National Security.  In fairness if it was reverse the Republicans would have done the same.  It's not a certain race or religion that is entitled in this country it's the elected officials who believe they are above the law and this is an example of it.  

I had a clearance.  We were taught above all to protect any information we came in contact with that was considered, sensitive or higher.  If an appointed staff member or elected official doesn't understand the importance of document classification and proper handling of such documents they have no business being in that position regardless of what political party they work for.  

[Elmer]

10 minutes ago, metbid said:

Now, as I turn on the tv, I see that Hillary has flown to a rally with the President on Air Force One....campaigning on our tax dime.

 

Name me an incumbent president who did not use Air-Force one to campaign, either for their re-election or campaign for others?

[newtogolf]

27 minutes ago, metbid said:

Now, as I turn on the tv, I see that Hillary has flown to a rally with the President on Air Force One....campaigning on our tax dime.

 

Which means Obama knew HRC wasn't going to be indicted before the plane ever left the ground.  

[saevel25]

12 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Which means Obama knew HRC wasn't going to be indicted before the plane ever left the ground.  

The FBI probably knew the decision they were going to make days ago. I would bet they let the President know about it then. 

[rehmwa]

35 minutes ago, metbid said:

Now, as I turn on the tv, I see that Hillary has flown to a rally with the President on Air Force One....campaigning on our tax dime.

That's ok, I'm sure he'll do the same for all the other candidates as well.

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The FBI probably knew the decisions days ago. I would bet they let the President know as soon as they made their decision. 

Probably knew as soon as Bill Clinton got off Lynch's plane last week after their secret meeting.  

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Probably knew as soon as Bill Clinton got off Lynch's plane last week after their secret meeting.  

Every private meeting is a secret meeting. Saying it's secret gives it some unwanted connotation. 

It depends on when she got word from the FBI.